Question about planned Alternates and the use of them when airborne
 

So you are about to do a commercial flight:

Airport (facilities) : Current forecasted Wx
Destination (Cat I RVR550m) : Wx forecasted 4000m BKN010
Alternate 1 closest (CatIII RVR200m) : Wx forecasted/actual RVR350m
Alternate 2 far away (Cat I RVR550m) : Wx forecasted/actual 3000m BKN007

So since Alternate 1 is forecasted below the next higher approach minimum (Cat I) it is not a legal alternate and two alternates must be used. So when departing for the flight you are required to take fuel for the alternate the furthest away. So extra fuel is taken.

You start the approach into the destination and and you get current RVR400m so you enter the hold for 10 minutes to see what is going on. After no luck you divert.

Two Questions:
1. Are you legally allowed when airborne to proceed to Alternate 1 (Actual RVR350m) even if the current conditions at the Alternate 1 are below CAT I (550m) but higher than CAT III minimums?

2. Do you have to have at least CAT I weather or better to be able to proceed to Alternate 1, is that correct?

I have been searching the answer for this everywhere, in EU-OPS everywhere but I cannot see the answer anywhere?
Thank you for your answers.
pT

FAA answer.

1. Yes, as the planned alternate was used, and specified.
Planning is one thing, actual diversion, and the weather encountered, is quite another.

2. No. See answer number one.

The second alternate is required at the flight planning stage, because of the forecasted weather.

Note.
You had damn well better have sufficent fuel for that second alternate (and holding, at 1500 agl) or the FAA will have your backside, IF you have an incident.

Note 2: The company chief pilot might well have your backside anyway, if you screw up.

411A's rule: Never EVER run short of fuel.
EVER.

JAA might be different, but remember, it is your behind that is on the line.
Make NO mistake.

Thank you very much for giving the FAA version. I am currently in Europe and it would be great if someone could provide the JAA side of it. Absolutely, I agree FUEL is the important thing. I was just wondering about the legalities.
Thanks, pT

You are welcome, PT.
We use different regulations in our ops, however, they closely resemble FAA requirements, with certain stipulations, mainly due to enroute contingency fuel....IE, we use 5% of the total fuel burn as contingency.
We always uplift enough fuel for the unexpected, and will offload payload to meet that requirement.
IE: better safe than sorry.

NB. Flying on fumes remaining ain't my style...and never will be.

Thanks again, 411A.
Just to make sure.

So you mean:
Don't proceed to ALT 1 unless you are completely sure that you have the fuel to take you from ALT 1 to ALT 2 including the 30' at 1500AGL (at ALT 2) or the FAA will have your backside?

I like fuel, and would just as you take the safer option.

Thanks, pT

Yes, that is the plan, PT, except, once airbourne, it all changes.
For example, there is no reason (nor regulation that I'm aware of) that says you cannot plan (and proceed to) another alternate if the first two planned originally at the flight planning stage prove to be unsuitable.
Planning is one thing, execution quite another.
Always leave yourself an out if it all goes pear-shaped.

Sometimes (and this happened to me one time only) an enroute diversion was necessary when the planned destination, and all alternates went below minimums.
Check your volmets enroute carefully and you will be prepared.
Use the six P's...

Prior
Planning
Prevents
Pi**
Poor
Performance

As 411A said planning stage of the flight and in-flight is different. When dispatchers planning a flight they must choose alternate which satify next higher approach minumum( If alternate has Cat II or Cat III you have to see Cat I minumum to choose this airport as an alternate) . When in-flight pilots always use charted minimums. No calculations for next higher or sth.

I have doubt about sth. For example if our crew doesnt have cat II or Cat III certificate and alternate has Cat II or Cat III. Should I look to Cat I minumum or sholud I look to non-precision app. minimums. Anyone know sth about that.

Eltazar - So if that is the case, it would be completely legal to fly and land at Alternate 1??

Please confirm. Thanks pT

I don't quite see why you have to have two alternates: since your destination is above operational minima you could get away with only nominating the #2. Remember that under EU-OPS; when you need two alternates, both of them needs to be above planning minima; but fuel is only required to reach the one furthest away (as opposed to going via the first, to the second alternate).

You are correct bfisk.

But my original questions sort of remains:

1. Is it legal to proceed to an alternate that does not fulfill the planing minima but does fulfill the actual minima?
(ALT #1 has RVR350m, so the weather is below CATI but higher than CATIII)

2. .. and if you do? Are you required to carry the fuel to take you to ALT #2?

thanks, pT

yes it is legal to fly and land to alternate, but at the planning stage( I mean on the ground) that alternate must satisfy next higher minumum. after take-off (in-flight) you do not need to look next higher minumum

sorry I forget second question,

eu-ops appendix 1 to ops 1.255 Fuel Policy says :

(b) where two destination alternate aerodromes are required in accordance with OPS 1.295(d), be sufficient to proceed to the alternate aerodrome which requires the greater amount of alternate fuel.

so if you choose 2 alternate, first one requires 1000 kg second one requires 2500 kg, you have to put 2500 kg fuel as an alternate fuel.

At my company, when we choose 2 alternate, lets say first one 1000 kg second one 2500 kg, in the CFP you can see 1000 kg alternate fuel and 1500 kg extra fuel( alternate differance)

I'm not so sure
 

OPS 1.340 (Subpart D):

"On an IFR flight a commander shall only: ... 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."

One could argue that the decision to forgo the farther alternate in favor of the closer-by alternate constituted in-flight re-planning, at which point the weather at the new alternate had to satisfy planning minima (i.e. CAT I RVR if CAT II/III approach in use).

For re-release/re-dispatch purposes... at the time of that re-dispatch, the alternate minima required should be that which would have been used originally, at the initial flight planning stage, prior to departure.
If no alternate exists which meet that requirement, the flight should divert to the non-redispatch destination.
The above is how it works at all carriers where I have worked, that use re-dispatch/re-release procedures.

Now, I know one Captain, that did not follow the above, then found his destination, and nearby alternates below minima, so had to divert to a very distant alternate, and after landing with his B747SP, on the taxiway, 2 of 4 engines flamed out due to fuel exhaustion.
The 747 fleet manager was not pleased...especially as the concerned 747 Captain was the director of safety for the airline.:eek:

Long Haul thanks for qutoe,

Actually I did not know this rule, but this rule applies to in-flight replanning. We are talking about normal flight. I think still no need for take higher minumum after you take-off. According to your quote if we use in-flight replanning we should consider next higher minumum.

for example:

IST-FRA flight dest.alt EDDM. At planning stage MUC staisfys CAT I minumum. When aicraft over FRA due to fog airport is closed. When pilot checks the weather at MUC ( vis 400 m ceiling 300 ft) He can continue to MUC. Aircraft has CAT II, Pilots have CAT II, Airport has CAT II. So noone says hey man MUC is your altenate you can not land to MUC in CAT II conditions.



rgrds

As far as I can see with regards to EU-OPS you only need one alt (as bfisk said) in your case as your destination wx is above the minima in accordance with OPS 1.297(b). From your list you are correct that you can not select alt 1 at the planning stage but alt 2 is fine as per OPS 1.297(c) table 1.

With regards to diverting to alt 1 once airborne as long as it is above the minima on the plates and for the likes of CAT II the aircraft is CAT II, the pilots CAT II rated etc then you can do this by all means just make sure you don't land with less then FRF in tanks!! Your comment about "do you have to have enough fuel to divert to alt 2 if you do divert to alt 1". My answer would be no (I can't find anything in EU-OPS that states otherwise, although I suppose a company manual could over ride this and put in a requirement). Just make sure that you have enough fuel to get you to alt 1 and have FRF left as a minimum on landing at alt 1, but as 411A says always have enough fuel to get yourself out of the hole when it all goes pear shaped.

Finally I have found this part in EU-OPS which has made me think (and maybe change my answer from above):

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.

My view on this note in (b) is that whilst you are enroute to your destination the weather there must be above landing minima or if it is not you may only continue towards it if any alt you are thinking of going to, the wx there must be above planning minima i.e CAT I RVR for a CATII alt. In this case you would not be able to divert to alt 1 in your case when en route. However once you arrive over head your destination and say for example it is below RVR limits for an approach. Your alt wx now just has to be above plate minima i.e this statement in (b) no longer applies as you are now no longer "enroute". In this case you can now divert to alt 1 in your example.

What are other people’s views on this?

PitotTube
When airbourne, you can land wherever the hell you like as long you have the required visual elements at decision altitiude/height.

to big d1

senario: You have 2 dest. alternate. Over destination you have 2 options when decide to divert. First options go to 1. alternate 2. options go to 2. alternate. 1. alternate requires 1000 kg. 2. alternate requires 2500 kg. At planning stage you have to put 2500 as alternate fuel.

eu-ops appendix 1 to ops 1.255 Fuel Policy says :

(b) where two destination alternate aerodromes are required in accordance with OPS 1.295(d), be sufficient to proceed to the alternate aerodrome which requires the greater amount of alternate fuel.


Your saying is different. You said (Your comment about "do you have to have enough fuel to divert to alt 2 if you do divert to alt 1). This is completely different.

eltazar

I understand fully that at the planning stage if you require 2 destination alternates as per OPS 1.295(d) then the fuel figure that goes down as the alternate fuel is the fuel for the one that results in the greatest burn to get to from overhead your destination. (as per your quote from eu-ops).

I think you may have miss understood what I have written, or I may have actually miss understood what PitotTube was asking. I was under the impression that the question PitotTube was asking that when airborne and sitting over the destination airfield in the hold because its closed for what ever reason and he/she decided to divert to alt 1 (the alt that did not meet the wx requirements at the planning stage) did he/she then need fuel to be able to still divert from alt 1 to alt 2 (the alt that did meet the wx requirements at the planning stage) on reaching alt 1. My answer to this is no. Once you choose to divert to any airfield the only fuel you have to make sure you have is FRF on landing at the alt.

What you are talking about is at the planning stage and is completely correct, however I believe PitotTube is talking about when airborne. Maybe PitotTube could clear this up?

big d1

that is exactly what I mean!

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

- 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')

cheers, pT