dispatch weather requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: wherever it was they sent me
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dispatch weather requirements
Quick question, cos it's much easier asking the combined knowledge of this data base than it is to plough through the books.
What weather conditions can be disregarded in the planning stage, in the TAF?
ie. prob30/40, tempo with limits and with no limits, gusts etc.
thank you
What weather conditions can be disregarded in the planning stage, in the TAF?
ie. prob30/40, tempo with limits and with no limits, gusts etc.
thank you
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of it can be disregarded for disptach planning purposes.
Even if the probability was as low as just 1% you would have to apply it (ie. the 1 - 2 -3 rule = 1 hour before to hour after the ETA, 2,000 foot ceiling and 3 s.m visibility)
I hope that helps. Good luck!
Even if the probability was as low as just 1% you would have to apply it (ie. the 1 - 2 -3 rule = 1 hour before to hour after the ETA, 2,000 foot ceiling and 3 s.m visibility)
I hope that helps. Good luck!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What weather conditions can be disregarded in the planning stage, in the TAF?
However, when we look at the weather, we note the winds and the anticipated runway, and the expected visibility--can we fly the approach? I look at the ceiling...it's not controlling, but it may affect what we can do, and it's a factor in selecting an alternate, too. Any temporary (Tempo) should also be considered.
I'm interested in forecasts of convective activity, and the area weather, too.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where you are 'coming from', CC, but the above info is incorrect under EU OPS which allow Probs of <40% to be 'ignored' as can gusts - 'mean wind' only required. TEMPO/BCMG must be considered.
HOWEVER - having been 3 times badly 'burnt' by crap met forecasts in my 40+ years, this Captain may choose to do otherwise.
HOWEVER - having been 3 times badly 'burnt' by crap met forecasts in my 40+ years, this Captain may choose to do otherwise.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: R069 5.6d
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a table in JAR OPS 1.297 titled application of aerodrome forecasts to pre-flight planning. It includes details for destination, take-off alternate, etc. At a glance an example of something to disregard comes under the tempo and prob column. You may disregard forecast improvements in this category. It makes sense and errs on the side of caution not to anticipate an improvement in conditions if they only have a prob30 chance of occurring.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: wherever it was they sent me
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I didn't phrase the question as well as I could have.
It was the legal dispatch requirements I was looking at not the practical piloting aspects.
BOAC has some of the answers there I think, Thanks.
It was the legal dispatch requirements I was looking at not the practical piloting aspects.
BOAC has some of the answers there I think, Thanks.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes tempo/bcg must be taken into account for planning.
My dispatch is taking in account ceilings ALONG WITH vis to chose wether a second alternate should be used.ie 1500m vis and 200ft ceiling at alternate..a second alternate is added for fuel planning.
However it is up to the pilots to disregard the second alternate fuel uplift since only the visibility is affecting us.
Yes some airports start low vis procedures due to ceiling but thats another debate:-)
Capt std
My dispatch is taking in account ceilings ALONG WITH vis to chose wether a second alternate should be used.ie 1500m vis and 200ft ceiling at alternate..a second alternate is added for fuel planning.
However it is up to the pilots to disregard the second alternate fuel uplift since only the visibility is affecting us.
Yes some airports start low vis procedures due to ceiling but thats another debate:-)
Capt std
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ? ? ?
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi CC, my be I misunderstanded your request, but in EU-OPS environment the above link table IS the legal dispatch requirements.
So, it is normal to receive OFP (or whatever you call it) according that considerations. It's up to the crew (to the Cpt) to apply more conservative consideration(s).
To be justified against the flt ops dept.
Ciao
So, it is normal to receive OFP (or whatever you call it) according that considerations. It's up to the crew (to the Cpt) to apply more conservative consideration(s).
To be justified against the flt ops dept.
Ciao
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GREAT Britain
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so if you look at that table, it implies that FOR LEGAL PLANNING PURPOSES you can disregard a TEMPO at the planning stage if it is connected to a condition such as a CB....however, not for a situation related to poor vis. etc.
Is that correct?
So. for example if you have vis. of say 1500m with a TEMPO of 300m then you need to consider it right??
But you can (for legal purposes) ignore a PROB TEMPO all the time right?
Is that correct?
So. for example if you have vis. of say 1500m with a TEMPO of 300m then you need to consider it right??
But you can (for legal purposes) ignore a PROB TEMPO all the time right?