EASA planning minima

[A350]

Can anyone explain this to me as I’m confused. (B) states that two destination alternate aerodromes are required when safety margins for met conditions and the planning minima cannot be met? I understood that planning minima only referred to ‘destination alternate’ as your destination needed to be above you ‘landing minima? And having an alternate below your planning minima means the airport cannot be selected as it needs to be above the planning minima???

AMC2 CAT.OP.MPA.182 Fuel/energy scheme — aerodrome selection policy — aeroplanes
BASIC FUEL SCHEME — DESTINATION ALTERNATE AERODROME
(a) For each IFR flight, the operator should select and specify in the operational and ATS flight plans
at least one destination alternate aerodrome.

(b) For each IFR flight, the operator should select and specify in the operational and ATS flight plans
two destination alternate aerodromes when for the selected destination aerodrome, the safety
margins for meteorological conditions of AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.182, and the planning minima of
AMC6 CAT.OP.MPA.182 cannot be met, or when no meteorological information is available.

Am I missing something?

[k.swiss]

(b) For each IFR flight, the operator should select and specify in the operational and ATS flight plans
two destination alternate aerodromes when for the selected destination aerodrome, the safety
margins for meteorological conditions of AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.182, and the planning minima of
AMC6 CAT.OP.MPA.182 cannot be met, or when no meteorological information is available.

In other words: Incase the destination aerodrome is below planning minima or no meteorological information available (IE: no ATIS) in this case two destination alternate aerodromes should be selected. This gives a higher fuel margin as the chances of diverting are increased.

The planning minima applies to all aerodromes during the planning stage in various ways. In this example, the destination aerodrome can be below minima, provided the alternate are above a specified minima and two are nominated. Think about it this way, you are dispatching to a remote aerodrome with no TAF, can you go? Yes! But you must have two nominated alternates above minima.

Hope that helps.

[A350]

Yes i did think of it this as you’ve described however if you read it exactly as its written it states

“For each IFR flight, two destination alternate aerodromes should be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans, when the safety margins for meteorological conditions of (AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.182), and the planning minima of (AMC6 CAT.OP.MPA.182) cannot be met, or when no meteorological information is available for the selected destination aerodrome.”

Basic Fuel Scheme – Safety Margins for Meteorological Conditions
AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.182
1.An aerodrome should only be selected as a:
a. b. take-off alternate aerodrome; or
destination aerodrome when the appropriate weather reports and/or forecasts indicate that during a period commencing 1 hour before and ending 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome, the weather conditions will be at or above the applicable landing minima as follows:
i. RVR or VIS specified in accordance with point CAT.OP.MPA.110 and
ii. for a type A or a circling operation, ceiling at or above MDH.

Basic Fuel Scheme – Planning Minima
AMC6 CAT.OP.MPA.182
An aerodrome should only be selected as a:
1. destination alternate aerodrome; or
2. fuel ERA aerodrome;
only when the appropriate weather reports and/or forecasts indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the planning minima of Table 2 below (any limitations related to OEI operations are also taken into account):

So following the above, safety margins reference ‘landing minima’ and ‘planning minima’ reference ‘planning minima’, I don’t see anywhere that it reference that you apply planning minima to destination???

[FlightDetent]

Visit a shrine of your own preference and pray to summon Denti or sonicboom.

[FullWings]

So following the above, safety margins reference ‘landing minima’ and ‘planning minima’ reference ‘planning minima’, I don’t see anywhere that it reference that you apply planning minima to destination???

In the sense of the documents quoted you are correct IMO. I think it is easy to mix the terms as you are “planning" to require “minima" at your destination and they are therefore, in a common-sense way, “planning minima” but not the specific “planning minima” that you need for alternates, etc. that are referenced in the table.

The minima used to decide whether you need two alternates for your destination are what many would call your operational minima, which are defined as “landing” minima; for an alternate (en-route or destination) or an isolated destination you need to use the specified minima in the table, which are defined as “planning” minima.

Summary: It’s possible (likely, even) to use words that we commonly apply in aviation inappropriately when interpreting regulation...

[FO.Airbus]

Hi

Anyone care to shed some light on how we with the new basic fuel schemes plan to our dest?

We have a look at our plate for dest and it’s an ILS with min and RVR given.

What do we add on during planning for an ILS and for a non precision approach?

Thanks