Question about planned Alternates and the use of them when airborne

[CamelhAir]

Does the Wx at your ALT still have to satisfy the "planing minima" when airborne?

No. It's very simple, once airbourne forget about "planning minima." Just put it out of your head, "planning" minima are always left on the ground.

Or is it enough with actual minima?

Yes. Once you get airbourne you can plan to land anywhere you like, once you
a) have the required (actual) minima to commence/continue an approach
and b) have the required visual references at decision altitude/height.

THE ONLY MINIMA YOU WILL EVER USE ONCE AIRBOURNE IS THE ACTUAL MINIMA AS PRINTED ON YOUR APPROACH PLATES.

And if you hold and divert to ALT 1 (below planing minima) , are you required to carry the fuel to ALT 2 + Final reserve (30 min 1500')

Again, forget about planning minima. The bottom line is, you need to land with final reserve fuel (though don't forget, final reserve fuel is useable fuel, but if you use it, you will need to explain why).
If you hold and you have an expectation that on arriving at ALT1 you will find it above actual minima, then you can plan to arrive there and land with only final reserve left. Remember, the two alternates fuel is a paperwork exercise, designed so that if ALT1 falls below actual minima (remember you are building in fat in the planning stage in the hope it won't) you will have fuel to get somewhere else if necessary. But if ALT1 is good enough to land at, this will become your nominated alternate and you land their with final reserve.
The only situation your question might be correct is if you ALT1 falls below actual minima prior to your diversion and you decide to divert their and have a look. In that case, if you didn't have a reasonable expectation of getting in, you would need fuel to then go to ALT2 if the attempt at ALT1 failed. Though I wouldn't recommend flying around having a look at alternates. If you need to divert, find an alternate you will get in at and stick to it.

So remember, all the planning phase stuff on the ground is a paperwork exercise, once you're airbourne the fuel is yours to use as you see fit and any airport is yours to use once above actual minima. Just don't land with less than final reserve if you want to avoid paperwork!

[big d1]

PitotTube

Thanks for clearing up your question. I therefore stand by what I said in my previous post, and agree with what CamelhAir has said. Once airborne it’s actual/plate minima that you need to worry about. With regards to the fuel no you do not need fuel to get from alt 1 to alt 2 if diverting to alt 1. Although as CamelhAir has said if you decided to divert to alt 1 with weather below minima to 'have a look' (although I don’t know why you would want to do this) then indirectly you would probably want to make sure that you had enough fuel to get to alt 2 (although no requirement in EU-OPS) as if you did need to go to alt 2 you best make sure you can get there AND land with a minimum of FRF in tank (which is a requirement).

CamelhAir I agree with you that once airborne all we are interested in is actual minima, but what do you make of the following which I found in EU-OPS?

OPS 1.340

Meteorological conditions
(a) On an IFR flight a commander shall only:

1. commence take-off; or

2. continue beyond the point from which a revised flight plan applies in the event of in-flight re-planning, when information is available indicating that the expected weather conditions, at the time of arrival, at the destination and/or required alternate aerodrome(s) prescribed in OPS 1.295 are at or above the planning minima, prescribed in OPS 1.297.

(b) On an IFR flight, a commander shall only continue towards the planned destination aerodrome when the latest information available indicates that, at the expected time of arrival, the weather conditions at the destination, or at least one destination alternate aerodrome, are at or above the planning applicable aerodrome operating minima.

I have posted my view point on this back in post #16.

So PitotTube to keep it simple

Does the Wx at your ALT still have to satisfy the "planing minima" when airborne? Or is it enough with actual minima?

actual minima is enough once airborne (although see my above quote from EU-OPS which may indicate otherwise. Waiting for other people's views on this)

And if you hold and divert to ALT 1 (below planing minima) , are you required to carry the fuel to ALT 2 + Final reserve (30 min 1500')

No just make sure you land with FRF wherever you decide to divert to

[Long Haul]

No. It's very simple, once airbourne forget about "planning minima." Just put it out of your head, "planning" minima are always left on the ground.

Got to disagree there, CamelhAir. Imagine you're flying to London, and Amsterdam is your alternate. If you are enroute and receive forecasts that indicate London will be below Cat III minimums and Amsterdam will be below Cat I minimums, you cannot continue to London unless you find a new alternate that will be above planning minimums. (OPS 1.340 b, as quoted above)

Back to the original question, which was, if I'm reading it correctly and using eltazar's example, as follows: destination Frankfurt, which will be above limits. You want to use Munchen as your alternate, but you can't, so you use Paris. You arrive over Frankfurt to find that you have to hold, and then reach the fuel level required to divert to Paris. Is it legal to hold a little longer, and then go to Munchen if the weather there is below Cat I? Should you thereafter have a problem, I think that the lawyers at your trial would point to OPS 1.340 (a) (2), and say that when you chose Munchen as your new destination alternate, that constituted in-flight replanning and therefore required planning minimums.

[eltazar]

This topic is some kind of brainstorm

We figured out some questions like what is planning minima and in-flight minima etc. Now new question is what is in-flight replanning ?

I do not know the correct answer and relation between in-flight replanning and our topic. For me it seems different but as I said I don t know exactly. So I need help.

[CamelhAir]

Hmmm, everyday's a schoolday. Can someone point to where I might find an online copy of EU-OPS? Google has not shown the way for once.

[172_driver]

Camelh, I am sure there is an easier way, but:

1. Förordningen - Transportstyrelsen

2. Press the link "Engelskspråkig version av EU-OPS bilaga 3 ändring 2, i kraft 2008-09-20"

The rest will be in English

[CamelhAir]

Thanks 172 driver, that links works just fine!

[big d1]

Having a quick flick through EU-OPS the only real bit I could see that indicates the definition of in-flight re-planning is as follows.

OPS 1.255
Fuel policy

(d) An operator shall ensure that in-flight re-planning procedures for calculating usable fuel required when a flight has to proceed along a route or to a destination aerodrome other than originally planned includes:

My take on this is that in-flight re-planning only occurs if you choose to fly a different route to get to your original destination or you fly to a new destination not originally planned for the flight at t/o. There does not seem to be any comments or references to alternates. Therefore to me it seems that deciding to divert to a different destination alternate other than the ones that where chosen at the planning stage would not be considered in-flight re-planning.

OPS 1.340
Meteorological conditions

2. continue beyond the point from which a revised flight plan applies in the event of in-flight re-planning, when information is available indicating that the expected weather conditions, at the time of arrival, at the destination and/or required alternate aerodrome(s) prescribed in OPS 1.295 are at or above the planning minima, prescribed in OPS 1.297.

(b) On an IFR flight, a commander shall only continue towards the planned destination aerodrome when the latest information available indicates that, at the expected time of arrival, the weather conditions at the destination, or at least one destination alternate aerodrome, are at or above the planning applicable aerodrome operating minima.

As far as in-flight re-planning goes and how it is linked to our subject, I think you have to break it down into the different phases of flight.

En-route:

When en-route for you to be able to continue towards your destination airport, your alternates must meet the planning minima (see quote above). Again if you re-plan to go to a new destination or take a new routing your associated alternates (whether new or original) must meet the planning minima for you to be able to continue with your flight. Where we have been talking about diverting to an airport that has not met the wx minima at the planning stage e.g. CAT II but RVR 400m this is no good when en route and can not be selected as an alternate for you to be able to continue towards your destination.

Over head your destination:

Once over head your destination you now only need plate minima at your alternates. Therefore now if you decide to divert to an alternate that did not meet the wx minima at the planning stage and therefore was not one of the designated alternates for the flight (in my view this does not count as re-planning) you are OK to divert to it with CAT II and 400m RVR (as apposed to planning minima of CAT II require CAT I RVR/550m to be selected at the planning stage)

Would be interesting to know how many people know about this topic. You learn something new each day

[eltazar]

big d1

thank for your research and comments. I agree with you about what is in-flight replanning. But some doubt about enroute phase and over head our destination.

- Is there any pilot whıch always checks his alternates during flight(enroute) and when he learns alternate weather is below cat I he try to fınd another alternate. I think when he learns that he should say, I am Cat II first officer Cat II so no problem to continue. Ofcourse he can change hıs alternate ıf he wants. Question is " Is it mandatory to change or not?"

[big d1]

Eltazar

Not a problem, this subject has been very interesting. This is just the way I have read it to make some sense so am more than happy to be corrected. The only reason I think you have to split it into en-route and over head is because all the references in EU-OPS only ever talk about "continue towards..." therefore implying you are 'en-route'.

As you say I bet the vast majority of short haul pilots that are hopping around Europe etc just get the wx and say "yes the wx at this alternate is CAT II, im CATII qualified, therefore alternate is OK" and continue towards their destination. Also with shorthaul flying by the time you get your wx anyway you not too far from your destination anyway. Especially with UK flying. Longhaul flights are different as I suspect you would be getting weather on a more regular basis and starting from a point further out so this does provide you more time to pick new alternates, as longhaul stated in an earlier post.

I believe by reading these quotes from EU-OPS it is mandatory to select new alternates. How many pilots are doing this? I suspect for shorthaul flights at least probably not many. Will this be picked up? Probably not until it all goes pear shaped and the pilots end up in court to explain themselves. I would bet then that some lawyer would find these quotes from EU-OPS.

[Long Haul]

My take on this is that in-flight re-planning only occurs if you choose to fly a different route to get to your original destination or you fly to a new destination not originally planned for the flight at t/o. There does not seem to be any comments or references to alternates.

Good point, I think that you're probably right about that.

- Is there any pilot whıch always checks his alternates during flight(enroute) and when he learns alternate weather is below cat I he try to fınd another alternate. I think when he learns that he should say, I am Cat II first officer Cat II so no problem to continue. Ofcourse he can change hıs alternate ıf he wants. Question is " Is it mandatory to change or not?"

Don't forget that OPS 1.340(b) says that, in order to continue, either your destination or your alternate need to be above planning minimums, not both. So, as long as you can still land at your destination, it doesn't matter what's happening at the alternate. Unless in-flight replanning has occurred, which then brings paragraph a(2) into play.

Very interesting subject indeed, it seems like the only thing that you can say with any certainty is, land with enough fuel so you don't have to explain your actions later!

[Pontius's Copilot]

big d1

Re EU-OPS 1.340, I reckon that's a 'typo'.
Planning requirements can only apply at the PLANNING stage, to determine the fuel requirement and nominated alternate(s), once airborne then operating minima apply. As you know well.

[Johnman]

Safety first

Very interesting brainstorming with EU-OPS.These discussions enable pilots to avoid troubles by knowing the rules and avoid shortcuts that the operators tend to impose on them by adopting fuel policies that has only the interest of saving.