Choice of alternates
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe im stating the obvious here but if this is in reference to an IR skills test then the flight should be treated as a public transport flight(certainly used to be when I did mine, albeit some time ago now). If its still the case then I would be applying the relevant EU Ops criteria to select an appropriate alternate(if required....or even 2 alternates if legally required). Thats perhaps what your examiner was looking to see in your planning and may explain why he said your choice of alternate was wrong.
Not withstanding that, I have never noticed the part of EU OPS that say an alternate must be the closest possible ILS equipped airport to your destination so as to minimise PAX onward bus costs. Both Lydd and Southend seem reasonable alternatives that comply with EU OPS. This feels like any answer Peter gave would be wrong.
Southampton == WRONG, if the weather is below minimum in Bournemouth why do you think it is going to be any better in Southampton.
Lydd == WRONG, its CAVOK at Bournemouth and forecast to be fine at Southampton, why fly to the other side of London when there is a perfectly good alternate right next door.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBM and B-X,
Apart from your own self gratification, self aggrandization or a personal vendetta, what is the point of mocking Peter's posts?
Forgive my ignorance, but I would like to have thought that those who frequent this site and contribute to these forums, especially those who perhaps have the experience, skills, knowledge and qualifications to be instructors and examiners, would be only too pleased to help the lesser qualified amongst us by passing on help, guidance and encouragement rather than sarcasm and ridicule.
Regarding selection of alternates, I think the availability of train services from one airport to another should be quite low on the list of desirable qualities. True, it might be seen as a plus point to get home as soon and as cheaply as possible, but the term, "pressonitis" seems to be a factor in a significant number of accident and incident reports.
IMHO - When poor weather might be a factor, one should select an alternate airfield where the forecast is significantly better than the forecast at the planned destination. Generally this means an alternate that lies in a different airmass, or is sufficiently far from the planned destination that the weather affecting the destination is not forecast to arrive at the alternate by the ETA plus a few hours, or has already passed through. Obviously one should also consider things like LDA Vs LDR, wind direction and strength, the availability of approach aids, approach minima Vs weather, operating hours, handling, maintenance, fuel etc.
For those who fly commercially I assume this is all prescribed in EU-OPS and company operations manuals. For the private pilot there seems to be less guidance and oversight; much of it is left to the pilot's discretion.
When poor weather is not a factor, a suitable airfield relatively close to the planned destination or indeed the airfield of departure (if one isn't particularly fussed about arriving at the destination) is usually a suitable alternate.
For an instrument rating flight test, I guess the simulated test conditions are for poor weather at departure and destination rather than fair. So for an IFR flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth and back, it could be argued that Southampton and Lydd would most likely be affected by the same prevailing weather on the South Coast of the UK and would therefore be unsuitable as "cast iron" IFR alternates. If however the problem was cross winds at Bournemouth (R/W 08/26) rather than cloud base/visibility, Southampton (R/W 02/20) might be a good choice after all.
But then I suspect that Peter knows all this already and is fishing.
Surely a brief discussion with any 170/IR examiner about the actual weather and actual alternates on the day Vs the assumed conditions for test and the consideration of alternates based on the assumed conditions, would demonstrate sound knowledge and understanding of IFR flight planning and procedures and be recognised by the examiner as such?
BJ
Apart from your own self gratification, self aggrandization or a personal vendetta, what is the point of mocking Peter's posts?
Forgive my ignorance, but I would like to have thought that those who frequent this site and contribute to these forums, especially those who perhaps have the experience, skills, knowledge and qualifications to be instructors and examiners, would be only too pleased to help the lesser qualified amongst us by passing on help, guidance and encouragement rather than sarcasm and ridicule.
Regarding selection of alternates, I think the availability of train services from one airport to another should be quite low on the list of desirable qualities. True, it might be seen as a plus point to get home as soon and as cheaply as possible, but the term, "pressonitis" seems to be a factor in a significant number of accident and incident reports.
IMHO - When poor weather might be a factor, one should select an alternate airfield where the forecast is significantly better than the forecast at the planned destination. Generally this means an alternate that lies in a different airmass, or is sufficiently far from the planned destination that the weather affecting the destination is not forecast to arrive at the alternate by the ETA plus a few hours, or has already passed through. Obviously one should also consider things like LDA Vs LDR, wind direction and strength, the availability of approach aids, approach minima Vs weather, operating hours, handling, maintenance, fuel etc.
For those who fly commercially I assume this is all prescribed in EU-OPS and company operations manuals. For the private pilot there seems to be less guidance and oversight; much of it is left to the pilot's discretion.
When poor weather is not a factor, a suitable airfield relatively close to the planned destination or indeed the airfield of departure (if one isn't particularly fussed about arriving at the destination) is usually a suitable alternate.
For an instrument rating flight test, I guess the simulated test conditions are for poor weather at departure and destination rather than fair. So for an IFR flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth and back, it could be argued that Southampton and Lydd would most likely be affected by the same prevailing weather on the South Coast of the UK and would therefore be unsuitable as "cast iron" IFR alternates. If however the problem was cross winds at Bournemouth (R/W 08/26) rather than cloud base/visibility, Southampton (R/W 02/20) might be a good choice after all.
But then I suspect that Peter knows all this already and is fishing.
Surely a brief discussion with any 170/IR examiner about the actual weather and actual alternates on the day Vs the assumed conditions for test and the consideration of alternates based on the assumed conditions, would demonstrate sound knowledge and understanding of IFR flight planning and procedures and be recognised by the examiner as such?
BJ
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selection of aerodromes
(a) An operator shall establish procedures for the selection of destination and/or alternate aerodromes in accordance with
OPS 1.220 when planning a flight.
(b) An operator must select and specify in the operational flight plan a take-off alternate aerodrome if it would not be possible
to return to the departure aerodrome for meteorological or performance reasons. The take-off alternate aerodrome,
in relation to the departure aerodrome, shall be located within:
1. for two-engined aeroplanes, either:
(i) one hour flight time at a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM)
in still air standard conditions based on the actual take-off mass; or
(ii) the operator’s approved ETOPS diversion time, subject to any MEL restriction, up to a maximum of two
hours, at the one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the AFM in still air standard conditions
based on the actual take-off mass for aeroplanes and crews authorised for ETOPS; or
2. two hours flight time at a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the AFM in still air standard conditions
based on the actual take-off mass for three and four-engined aeroplanes; and
3. if the AFM does not contain a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed, the speed to be used for calculation must be
that which is achieved with the remaining engine(s) set at maximum continuous power.
(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
1. both:
(i) the duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance
with OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours, and
(ii) two separate runways (see OPS 1.192) are available and usable at the destination aerodrome and the appropriate
weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that
for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at the destination aerodrome,
the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility
will be at least 5 km;
or
2. the destination aerodrome is isolated.
(d) An operator must select two destination alternate aerodromes when:
1. the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate
that during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival, the
weather conditions will be below the applicable planning minima (see OPS 1.297(b)); or
2. no meteorological information is available.
(e) An operator shall specify any required alternate aerodrome(s) in the operational flight plan.
20.9.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 254/37
OPS 1.297
Planning minima for IFR flights
(a) Planning minima for a take-off alternate aerodrome. An operator shall only select an aerodrome as a take-off alternate
aerodrome when the appropriate weather reports or forecasts or any combination thereof indicate that, during a period
commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather
conditions will be at or above the applicable landing minima specified in accordance with OPS 1.225. The ceiling must
be taken into account when the only approaches available are non-precision and/or circling approaches. Any limitation
related to one-engine-inoperative operations must be taken into account.
(b) Planning minima for a destination aerodrome (except isolated destination aerodromes). An operator shall only select
the destination aerodrome and when:
1. the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that, during a period commencing
one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions
will be at or above the applicable planning minima as follows:
(i) RVR/visibility specified in accordance with OPS 1.225; and
(ii) For a non-precision approach or a circling approach, the ceiling at or above MDH; or
2. two destination alternate aerodromes are selected under OPS 1.295(d).
(c) Planning minima for a:
destination alternate aerodrome, or
isolated aerodrome, or
3 % ERA aerodrome, or
en-route alternate aerodrome required at the planning stage
An operator shall only select an aerodrome for one of those purposes when the appropriate weather reports or forecasts,
or any combination thereof, indicate that, during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour
after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions will be at or above the planning minima in
Table 1 below.
Table 1
Planning minima — Destination alternate aerodrome, isolated destination aerodrome, 3 % ERA and en-route
alternate aerodrome
Type of approach Planning minima
Cat II and III Cat I (Note 1)
Cat I Non-precision
(Notes 1 and 2)
Non-precision Non-precision
(Notes 1 and 2) plus
200 ft / 1 000 m
Circling Circling
Note 1 RVR.
Note 2 The ceiling must be at or above the MDH.
(a) An operator shall establish procedures for the selection of destination and/or alternate aerodromes in accordance with
OPS 1.220 when planning a flight.
(b) An operator must select and specify in the operational flight plan a take-off alternate aerodrome if it would not be possible
to return to the departure aerodrome for meteorological or performance reasons. The take-off alternate aerodrome,
in relation to the departure aerodrome, shall be located within:
1. for two-engined aeroplanes, either:
(i) one hour flight time at a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM)
in still air standard conditions based on the actual take-off mass; or
(ii) the operator’s approved ETOPS diversion time, subject to any MEL restriction, up to a maximum of two
hours, at the one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the AFM in still air standard conditions
based on the actual take-off mass for aeroplanes and crews authorised for ETOPS; or
2. two hours flight time at a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed according to the AFM in still air standard conditions
based on the actual take-off mass for three and four-engined aeroplanes; and
3. if the AFM does not contain a one-engine-inoperative cruising speed, the speed to be used for calculation must be
that which is achieved with the remaining engine(s) set at maximum continuous power.
(c) An operator must select at least one destination alternate for each IFR flight unless:
1. both:
(i) the duration of the planned flight from take-off to landing or, in the event of in-flight re-planning in accordance
with OPS 1.255(d), the remaining flying time to destination does not exceed six hours, and
(ii) two separate runways (see OPS 1.192) are available and usable at the destination aerodrome and the appropriate
weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate that
for the period from one hour before until one hour after the expected time of arrival at the destination aerodrome,
the ceiling will be at least 2 000 ft or circling height + 500 ft, whichever is greater, and the visibility
will be at least 5 km;
or
2. the destination aerodrome is isolated.
(d) An operator must select two destination alternate aerodromes when:
1. the appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination aerodrome, or any combination thereof, indicate
that during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival, the
weather conditions will be below the applicable planning minima (see OPS 1.297(b)); or
2. no meteorological information is available.
(e) An operator shall specify any required alternate aerodrome(s) in the operational flight plan.
20.9.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 254/37
OPS 1.297
Planning minima for IFR flights
(a) Planning minima for a take-off alternate aerodrome. An operator shall only select an aerodrome as a take-off alternate
aerodrome when the appropriate weather reports or forecasts or any combination thereof indicate that, during a period
commencing one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather
conditions will be at or above the applicable landing minima specified in accordance with OPS 1.225. The ceiling must
be taken into account when the only approaches available are non-precision and/or circling approaches. Any limitation
related to one-engine-inoperative operations must be taken into account.
(b) Planning minima for a destination aerodrome (except isolated destination aerodromes). An operator shall only select
the destination aerodrome and when:
1. the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that, during a period commencing
one hour before and ending one hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions
will be at or above the applicable planning minima as follows:
(i) RVR/visibility specified in accordance with OPS 1.225; and
(ii) For a non-precision approach or a circling approach, the ceiling at or above MDH; or
2. two destination alternate aerodromes are selected under OPS 1.295(d).
(c) Planning minima for a:
destination alternate aerodrome, or
isolated aerodrome, or
3 % ERA aerodrome, or
en-route alternate aerodrome required at the planning stage
An operator shall only select an aerodrome for one of those purposes when the appropriate weather reports or forecasts,
or any combination thereof, indicate that, during a period commencing one hour before and ending one hour
after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions will be at or above the planning minima in
Table 1 below.
Table 1
Planning minima — Destination alternate aerodrome, isolated destination aerodrome, 3 % ERA and en-route
alternate aerodrome
Type of approach Planning minima
Cat II and III Cat I (Note 1)
Cat I Non-precision
(Notes 1 and 2)
Non-precision Non-precision
(Notes 1 and 2) plus
200 ft / 1 000 m
Circling Circling
Note 1 RVR.
Note 2 The ceiling must be at or above the MDH.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know (or think I know) how to choose alternates, but as I wrote earlier I wondered if anybody can come up with a reason for choosing Southampton in that scenario. It seems to hang entirely on the unlikely scenario of Bournemouth getting shut down.
It is indeed possible that the examiner in question had AOC criteria in mind, not realising that they are perhaps inapplicable to a private IR.
He was certainly highly specific on that convenience should not feature at all in the choice of alternates or the decision to take one; an admirable and correct and proper attitude I am sure.
Another examiner I flew with today (just some practice) was equally puzzled.
Incidentally I do think that "usefulness" should feature significantly in the choice of alternates. I would not file as an alternate an airport whose locality is an absolute sh**hole (and there are plenty of such) because the incentive to divert there is going to be zero except as an all out emergency with no options left. Private flying is meant to be enjoyed - it is damn expensive enough... If I was going to divert and had various options I would ask passengers where they would like to go (ILS and a decent place to eat would probably feature strongly).
Let's face it, despite all the supposed procedures, even the most famous airlines frequently choose alternates picked for practicality (vis that famous 747 flight from the USA to "London Manchester" with 1 engine shredded on takeoff).
Lydd can be an excellent weather alternate and indeed was the only place open for many miles around the south when I flew back from Tempelhof once. And even it closed minutes after I landed (OVC001 or so). You just cannot realistically get out of there, short of flying out the next day or whatever. For some reason, Lydd often escapes very low cloud which shuts down much of the south east GA access.
In places like Greece one often has no option but to file an alternate which has no avgas, but that is rarely the case up here.
It is indeed possible that the examiner in question had AOC criteria in mind, not realising that they are perhaps inapplicable to a private IR.
He was certainly highly specific on that convenience should not feature at all in the choice of alternates or the decision to take one; an admirable and correct and proper attitude I am sure.
Another examiner I flew with today (just some practice) was equally puzzled.
Incidentally I do think that "usefulness" should feature significantly in the choice of alternates. I would not file as an alternate an airport whose locality is an absolute sh**hole (and there are plenty of such) because the incentive to divert there is going to be zero except as an all out emergency with no options left. Private flying is meant to be enjoyed - it is damn expensive enough... If I was going to divert and had various options I would ask passengers where they would like to go (ILS and a decent place to eat would probably feature strongly).
Let's face it, despite all the supposed procedures, even the most famous airlines frequently choose alternates picked for practicality (vis that famous 747 flight from the USA to "London Manchester" with 1 engine shredded on takeoff).
Lydd can be an excellent weather alternate and indeed was the only place open for many miles around the south when I flew back from Tempelhof once. And even it closed minutes after I landed (OVC001 or so). You just cannot realistically get out of there, short of flying out the next day or whatever. For some reason, Lydd often escapes very low cloud which shuts down much of the south east GA access.
In places like Greece one often has no option but to file an alternate which has no avgas, but that is rarely the case up here.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from your own self gratification, self aggrandization or a personal vendetta, what is the point of mocking Peter's posts?
However I was not mocking his post. I am genuinely interested in why he considers a diversion a full emergency. They are common place for me at work, especially on the Spain run where Santander is frequently below minima.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grrrrrrr I get madder than a really mad thing when people start trotting out commercial ops in the IR context. I got my IR when I was already two years too old to be a commercial pilot.
Europeans please get your head round the fact that many of us with IR just want to fly IFR in our little aeroplanes so we can use them like cars. We don't care about commercial operations and we don't have ops manuals and we ALWAYS plan for convenience.
If my destination and alternate don't work (as has happened to me a couple of times) I get ATC to go find me somewhere I can get into, it's one of the things ATC is for.
Europeans please get your head round the fact that many of us with IR just want to fly IFR in our little aeroplanes so we can use them like cars. We don't care about commercial operations and we don't have ops manuals and we ALWAYS plan for convenience.
If my destination and alternate don't work (as has happened to me a couple of times) I get ATC to go find me somewhere I can get into, it's one of the things ATC is for.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah but if you want the rating then you have to jump through the hoops. If that means the conduct of the test is as per a public transport flight then so be it. Do what you like private IFR wise once you've got the rating.....nobody will give a damn.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peterh337
*
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brighton (pronounced without the "t")
Posts: 111
Quote:
They are common place for me at work
What is your line of "work" these days, bose-x ?
*
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brighton (pronounced without the "t")
Posts: 111
Quote:
They are common place for me at work
What is your line of "work" these days, bose-x ?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just stick some common sense into planning and ask yourself few questions like, what's the weather like (CAT I, Non-precision, Just about VFR or is a beautiful, gin clear sunny say?), what's the aircraft like (Full IFR, VFR etc.?) and what happens if something breaks (on the plane or on the airport)? Commercially, you'd pick the closest 'company' airport but privately, given a choice, maybe you'd select the one with the best alternative transport links or maybe the one with the cheapest parking. A proper plan will also allow for a one level of degradation in the aircraft (like ILS failure and a diversion to a non-precision airfield, or NDB failure and a diversion to an airfield that is VFR). Then you have to carry enough fuel to start-up, climb and fly to your destination, make an approach, go-around and divert and arrive with a reasonable amount of fuel at your alternate.
PM
PM
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from your own self gratification, self aggrandization or a personal vendetta, what is the point of mocking Peter's posts?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
If it is a test or a 170A put down whatever is expected. If it is a private flight put down whatever is sensible (I'd have gone for Exeter over Lydd btw), if it is a diversion for real, go to wherever will work best at the time, just because it is on your flight plan you don't have to use it (but I know you know that).
Ian
If it is a test or a 170A put down whatever is expected. If it is a private flight put down whatever is sensible (I'd have gone for Exeter over Lydd btw), if it is a diversion for real, go to wherever will work best at the time, just because it is on your flight plan you don't have to use it (but I know you know that).
Ian
All very interesting. In the US it's clearly understood that a filed alternate is ONLY for planning purposes - primarily fuel. Once you get up there you can do whatever is most convenient. ATC doesn't even know what you filed.
Of course it depends what you fly too. I rarely have less than 2 hours reserve, which means that in California I can always fly to the desert if I had to. If carrying fuel costs you serious money (as in a 747) then of course you can't be as casual about things.
If I'm going to a non-ILS airport, I always file the nearest ILS (assuming the weather is up to diversion mins). If my destination has an ILS then I'll file to another nearby airport that has one, but if the weather is below ILS mins I'll probably be going further than that - and making sure I have enough fuel accordingly, regardless of the flight plan.
(Of course in the US there is no public transport worth speaking of. Airports with an ILS generally also have decent car rental though).
Of course it depends what you fly too. I rarely have less than 2 hours reserve, which means that in California I can always fly to the desert if I had to. If carrying fuel costs you serious money (as in a 747) then of course you can't be as casual about things.
If I'm going to a non-ILS airport, I always file the nearest ILS (assuming the weather is up to diversion mins). If my destination has an ILS then I'll file to another nearby airport that has one, but if the weather is below ILS mins I'll probably be going further than that - and making sure I have enough fuel accordingly, regardless of the flight plan.
(Of course in the US there is no public transport worth speaking of. Airports with an ILS generally also have decent car rental though).
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another reason for *filed* alternates is lost comms.
If you turn up at your destination in IMC w/lost comms & unable to land, ATC will expect you to proceed to your filed alternate.
Otherwise I agree about the arbitrariness of *filing* an alternate.
Unless crossing national borders or tricky airspace, in a diversion situation & with ATC's help, I'd always divert to the most appropriate alternative, irregardless of whether I'd put it into the original flight plan or not.
(but I'm sure there's situations where this could cause major administrative trouble)
If you turn up at your destination in IMC w/lost comms & unable to land, ATC will expect you to proceed to your filed alternate.
Otherwise I agree about the arbitrariness of *filing* an alternate.
Unless crossing national borders or tricky airspace, in a diversion situation & with ATC's help, I'd always divert to the most appropriate alternative, irregardless of whether I'd put it into the original flight plan or not.
(but I'm sure there's situations where this could cause major administrative trouble)
While I have had my differences with Peter337 in his present and previous incarnations, this time it is hard not to think he was screwed by an examiner who was a total w@nker.
With respect to an alternate airport there is no grey area. If the airport has the appropriate weather forecast, no notams which affect its suitability and is within the fuel range then it is a legal alternate. The examiner may not like your choice but it would seem to me the examiner is grossly exceeding his authority if he were to mark you down for presenting a legal alternate not of his liking.
As for selecting an alternate outside the make believe fantasy land that is flight school IFR training in pretty much every country, well that is a different story.
When flying IFR privately I use the same criteria as when flying commercially. There will be 3 alternates
1) The commercial one: That is the place that will cause the least cost and inconvenience
2) The legal one: That is what goes on the flight plan and meets all the legal requirements
3) The inflight decision one: This is a result of the constant assessment of how things are going and where to go with the worst case scenario and will be updated with the a succession of "near to me" airports as the flight progresses.
Some days all three are the same, most days 1 and 2 are the same and the odd day 3 is the only one that matters.
With respect to an alternate airport there is no grey area. If the airport has the appropriate weather forecast, no notams which affect its suitability and is within the fuel range then it is a legal alternate. The examiner may not like your choice but it would seem to me the examiner is grossly exceeding his authority if he were to mark you down for presenting a legal alternate not of his liking.
As for selecting an alternate outside the make believe fantasy land that is flight school IFR training in pretty much every country, well that is a different story.
When flying IFR privately I use the same criteria as when flying commercially. There will be 3 alternates
1) The commercial one: That is the place that will cause the least cost and inconvenience
2) The legal one: That is what goes on the flight plan and meets all the legal requirements
3) The inflight decision one: This is a result of the constant assessment of how things are going and where to go with the worst case scenario and will be updated with the a succession of "near to me" airports as the flight progresses.
Some days all three are the same, most days 1 and 2 are the same and the odd day 3 is the only one that matters.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBM
Please accept my apologies - I misread your post.
Peter is obviously seeking to clarify some of the things that happened and/or things that were debriefed by his examiner during a recent IR flight check (power checks, rudder checks, when to call "established" on the ILS, calculation of DA, the addition of PEC and the selection of alternates). Obviously we only have his side of the story, and his recollection of events. The examiner hasn't and probably can't reply with his or her own version of the flight.
Nevertheless, I find it saddening that the standard response of some supposedly experienced and highly qualified pilots (and examiners?) is negative when its so easy to avoid the politics and just offer good advice. Personally I find it heartening to read about the exploits of a pilot who constantly asks questions, challenges perceived wisdom and practice and wants to understand why we do what we do.
Once again, I'm sorry for misrepresenting you in relation to the above.
BJ
Please accept my apologies - I misread your post.
Peter is obviously seeking to clarify some of the things that happened and/or things that were debriefed by his examiner during a recent IR flight check (power checks, rudder checks, when to call "established" on the ILS, calculation of DA, the addition of PEC and the selection of alternates). Obviously we only have his side of the story, and his recollection of events. The examiner hasn't and probably can't reply with his or her own version of the flight.
Nevertheless, I find it saddening that the standard response of some supposedly experienced and highly qualified pilots (and examiners?) is negative when its so easy to avoid the politics and just offer good advice. Personally I find it heartening to read about the exploits of a pilot who constantly asks questions, challenges perceived wisdom and practice and wants to understand why we do what we do.
Once again, I'm sorry for misrepresenting you in relation to the above.
BJ
Last edited by Black Jake; 22nd Dec 2011 at 07:29.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is a test or a 170A put down whatever is expected.
Peter has been flying on his FAA PPL/IR throughout Europe for a number of years now and he's still around despite having to divert a few times. So I guess from a practical standpoint, he knows all there is to know about selection of alternates. In fact, from a practical point he can teach us all something about selection of alternates.
Now he failed his JAA 170A, and this is apparently one of the reasons. So he wants to get to the bottom of this.
So far the only real references people have posted (other than a few common sense posts - but we have established by now that the JAA IR is not about common sense) seem to come straight from EU-OPS. But EU-OPS doesn't apply to private flights. The question then becomes: Does it (legally speaking) apply to an IR that's going to be attached to a PPL? In other words: Show us the bit in the ANO, LASORS or whatever that specifies that knowledge of, and adherence to, EU-OPS is a requisite for the IR.
Or in yet other words:
Yeah but if you want the rating then you have to jump through the hoops. If that means the conduct of the test is as per a public transport flight then so be it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's actually a good point whether EU-OPS apply.
I am sure they do not apply to the private pilot flying somewhere for real, in the areas we are talking about. But I am not sure they do not apply to somebody doing the ICAO IR to JAA IR conversion training at a UK FTO.
As BP mentions, I have an FAA IR (CPL/IR in fact), with the IR since 2006. I've been doing the 15hr conversion course to a JAA PPL/IR, and have completed that. What I don't know is whether that course was an "approved course" i.e. a course approved by the UK CAA for that FTO to run, or whether it was an "ad hoc" bit of training. I think it is the latter, and this may well determine whether (and to what extent) the stuff that features in that FTO's CAA approval is required. For example I do not need to wear the pilot uniform
I also do not need to use the specific kneeboard which is in their approval (a friend of mine who did a CPL/IR had to use a specific kneeboard and had to organise the papers on it in a specific way). I was told I have to use their plog form, which I did use despite it being near useless for any real flying.
The 170A (which is a "pre test test") examiner may have been applying some of their "approved course" rules, but I really have no idea. I have finished there now. I just wondered if there was some (bizzare) reason for using Southampton as the alternate...
The point about choosing an alternate in case of equipment failures is an excellent one.
Under FAA rules if your filed destination has only a GPS IAP then you cannot file an alternate with only a GPS IAP - IIRC. I think this rule is widely disregarded in as much as people file alternates which they have no intention of ever using, which is legal because once airborne you can divert anywhere you like (in the USA, this really works, because there is no PPR/PNR and most airports are H24 with PCL, etc etc).
Most IFR planes have two NAV receivers capable of LOC/GS and two indicators (though usually only NAV1 can drive the autopilot) but they usually have only one LOC/GS antenna. And these antennae do fail - both in the antenna and in the wiring to it and in subsequent signal processing. I once flew a really crappy VOR approach (on which I used the VOR rather than the GPS OBS mode - something I almost never do ) and it turned out to be a very subtly duff KN72 signal converter which generated incorrect HSI deviation bar and to/from flag indications but failed to drop the flag into view. I've also had, on another occassion, an internal break in one of the two VOR/LOC antennae which produced a total blind spot on a particular bearing; this was revealed by flying a full 360 orbit some distance from a VOR.
I am sure they do not apply to the private pilot flying somewhere for real, in the areas we are talking about. But I am not sure they do not apply to somebody doing the ICAO IR to JAA IR conversion training at a UK FTO.
As BP mentions, I have an FAA IR (CPL/IR in fact), with the IR since 2006. I've been doing the 15hr conversion course to a JAA PPL/IR, and have completed that. What I don't know is whether that course was an "approved course" i.e. a course approved by the UK CAA for that FTO to run, or whether it was an "ad hoc" bit of training. I think it is the latter, and this may well determine whether (and to what extent) the stuff that features in that FTO's CAA approval is required. For example I do not need to wear the pilot uniform
I also do not need to use the specific kneeboard which is in their approval (a friend of mine who did a CPL/IR had to use a specific kneeboard and had to organise the papers on it in a specific way). I was told I have to use their plog form, which I did use despite it being near useless for any real flying.The 170A (which is a "pre test test") examiner may have been applying some of their "approved course" rules, but I really have no idea. I have finished there now. I just wondered if there was some (bizzare) reason for using Southampton as the alternate...
The point about choosing an alternate in case of equipment failures is an excellent one.
Under FAA rules if your filed destination has only a GPS IAP then you cannot file an alternate with only a GPS IAP - IIRC. I think this rule is widely disregarded in as much as people file alternates which they have no intention of ever using, which is legal because once airborne you can divert anywhere you like (in the USA, this really works, because there is no PPR/PNR and most airports are H24 with PCL, etc etc).
Most IFR planes have two NAV receivers capable of LOC/GS and two indicators (though usually only NAV1 can drive the autopilot) but they usually have only one LOC/GS antenna. And these antennae do fail - both in the antenna and in the wiring to it and in subsequent signal processing. I once flew a really crappy VOR approach (on which I used the VOR rather than the GPS OBS mode - something I almost never do
) and it turned out to be a very subtly duff KN72 signal converter which generated incorrect HSI deviation bar and to/from flag indications but failed to drop the flag into view. I've also had, on another occassion, an internal break in one of the two VOR/LOC antennae which produced a total blind spot on a particular bearing; this was revealed by flying a full 360 orbit some distance from a VOR.
Last edited by peterh337; 22nd Dec 2011 at 08:17.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now he failed his JAA 170A, and this is apparently one of the reasons. So he wants to get to the bottom of this.
The 170A signatories job (he doesn't have to be an examiner) I think is to
- assess if the candidate has flown to the test standard and is ready for test
- help the candidate by debriefing on any points which might be picked up by an examiner
I think there are a number of points to be made here. When the examiner notices a potential or actual "deviation" it could be to a degree varying from "on its own, this would be a fail item" through to "it might be preferable if you did this a bit differently". His debriefing has to cover all of these. The 170A guy might only fly once with a student, so he has to pack everything into the debrief. Perhaps some examiners are inclined to polarise feedback and label something a "fail item" as a means of emphasis.
It seems to me that most (all?) of the topics discussed are legitimate items of feedback.
- you mustn't omit the pax brief under any circumstances. The training slot is not as rigid as a CTOT!
- brief the examiner beforehand and agree the conduct of power and rudder checks
- call "localiser established" not just when within half-scale deflection on intercept, but also having rolled out and stabilised on the inbound heading
The 170A Signatory/Examiner's conduct is something Peter was unhappy with and he will avoid flying with him again. These things happen. Us ranting on about it has no value, and (forbid the thought) we might even think it unfair to do so, not having been present.
There is an article here PPL/IR Europe - FAA to JAA IR Conversion Flight Training on FAA to JAA IR conversion flight training. One point it makes in the section about "attitude" to conversion training is:
As a conversion candidate, you won’t be learning anything fundamentally new in the IR course. Instructors will tend to treat you more like a peer than a young cadet. In this context, there is a potential trap. Success in the JAA IR is dependent, to an extent, on a long set of ‘secondary’ disciplines – from how you prepare and plan a flight through to the exact way in which you execute the checks and standard procedures. For the experienced candidate, there is a temptation to blend what the instructor teaches with your own established methods, or to dilute methods that seem excessively laborious with a more pragmatic style. This could apply to many elements of the course, from how avionics are configured and checked at every phase of flight, through to the exact method for executing a hold or the exact sequence of engine failure drills. If you don’t try to understand and emulate the instructor’s methods 100% from the very start of your training, you may create a problem that won’t manifest itself until late in the process.
On the choice of alternates, I think there is a misunderstanding. The alternate in question is not an alternate to Bournemouth, but to Shoreham. Although the training flight described simulates a flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth diverting back to Shoreham, the actual IFR flight plan filed is for a round-robin flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth and back, and thus the alternate is for the arrival at Shoreham. Southampton is the best and obvious choice for an alternate in these circumstances (IMHO), subject to TAFs and NOTAMs obviously and if I were training someone, I think I'd suggest that in preference to Lydd (and certainly Southend).
It may well be that the manner in which these points were made to Peter was wrong. But there is some reasonable substance behind (most of) them, and a more general and important point - your approach to the IR test as a conversion candidate needs to be as closely aligned to all the detailed expectations of the JAA "way" as possible. There is much more value to be had in trying to understand how to do this than in over-analysing every element of how this "way" differs from one's established methods.
brgds
421C