Non-ETOPS Enroute Alternates

[longobard]

EU OPS 1.192 states:

En-route alternate (ERA) aerodrome. An adequate aerodrome along the route, which may be required at the planning
stage.


EU OPS 1.245 states:

Maximum distance from an adequate aerodrome for two-engined aeroplanes without an ETOPS approval
(See OPS 1.192)
...60min...one eng inop cruising speed...


EU OPS OPS 1.297 states:

.....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...


my question is:

1)in which cases enroute alternate for non etops flights are required at planning stage (so satisfying wx requiremens of EU OPS 1.297)?

2)in the cases different from 1) the enroute alternate for non etops flights needs only to be adequate?

[9.G]

longobard, that's quite a discussion you starting there, I'm sure the fronts will be divided here too. Anyways, the answer to your first question would be enroute alternate required at the planning stage maybe due to terrain profile for both decompression and engine failure. It's when you have no other choice but to follow the approved escape route towards the enroute alternate. Good examples are routes over Himalayas.

I'll cautiously answer your question 2 with yes.

[I-2021]

1) Reduced contingency fuel procedure, ie contigency fuel 3% of trip fuel instead of 5% with a suitable enroute alternate as specified (don't know the reference to EU-OPS but I'm sure you'll find it in your OM-A and somebody will post all the references). You could also think about decision point procedure planning with an enroute destination, where you need a suitable enroute alternate for your enroute destination.

2) For the above requirements, it must be suitable at planning stage.

EDIT : Woops you mentioned the references, must be still sleeping

[felixthecat]

My reading of the following

.Planning minima for a:
destination alternate aerodrome, or
isolated aerodrome, or
3 % ERA aerodrome, or
en-route alternate aerodrome required at the planning stage

is that it is saying that it is a destination alternate OR isolated aerodrome OR 3% ERA OR en-route alternate…………..required at the planning stage not that it is en-route alternate aerodrome required at the planning stage. ie If you need any of the above, so if you are non ETOPs then the en-route alternate is not required.

If an adequate aerodrome has the wx minimum required it becomes a suitable aerodrome. They are stipulating weather is required +- 1 hr therefore it is suitable.

[longobard]

I-2021, as felixthecat says

reduced contingency procedure requires wx minima for the only 3% ERA to be suitable, in may opinion, the other enroute alternates should only be adequate

moreover the decision point procedure doesn't have any reference to enroute alternate, but destination 1 and destination 2

[I-2021]

Longobard, in a non etops scenario you do not need enroute alternates except for the cases that you have mentioned. You need adequate airfields with 60 min, that's all. Regarding the planning with decision point procedure, you need an alternate for your enroute destination.

Cheers.