SlimHeader

facebook_page_plugin
×
NEW RELEASE Series of Video Lectures based on the Instrument Rating Study Guide (14 Mar 2019)

Individual topics are available for purchase through PayPal starting at $10

at online.bobtait.com.au/course/index.php?categoryid=22

or Contact Maree in the Office This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 0732040965 if you wish to purchased the entire Course for $675

× Welcome to the IREX question and answer forum. Please feel free to post your questions but more importantly also suggest answers for your forum colleagues. Bob himself or one of the other tutors will get to your question as soon as we can.

Alternate requirements for airfields with no instrument approach and no TAF

  • Posts: 2
  • Thank you received: 0

steveo created the topic: Alternate requirements for airfields with no instrument approach and no TAF

Hi, I'm confused about alternate requirements for airfields with no instrument approach nor TAF.

ENR1.1 11.7.1.3 "When an aerodrome forecast is not available or is provisional the pilot in command must make a provide for a suitable alternate that has a firm forecast"

ENR 11.7.3.2 (a) ... says that where there is no radio nav aid, no alternate is needed if not more than SCT cloud below the final route segment.

So, if you are going to an airfield with no instrument approach and no TAF, but the ARFOR says "not more than SCT cloud below the final route segment", do you need to provide for an alternate?

11.7.1.3 suggest alternate required (no TAF) and 11.7.3.2 (a) suggests no alternate required (because the ARFOR is OK)

I was asked this question in a practice exam and got quite confused! Can you please assist?

Thanks!
#1

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1902
  • Thank you received: 98

bobtait replied the topic: Alternate requirements for airfields with no instrument approach and no TAF

AIP ENR 11.7.3.2 begins with the words "notwithstanding the above". No particular paragraph is mentioned so it means that notwithstanding anything that has been said before. That includes para 11.7.1.3. So providing the GAF says that there is no broken cloud below LSALT + 500ft and visibility is not less than 8km, you can plan without an alternate to an aerodrome where an instrument approach procedure is not available and/or no TAF is available. That includes an aerodrome that normally has a published instrument approach but, on the occasion of the flight, the navigation aid required for the approach is not available.
#2
The following user(s) said Thank You: becb, steveo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 4
  • Thank you received: 0

jboyle replied the topic: Alternate requirements for airfields with no instrument approach and no TAF

Hi Bob, a related question here.

My understanding is you can plan an IFR charter to an aerodrome with no instrument approaches as long as the GAF shows visual conditions without needing an alternate (11.7.3.2).
But - if you are going to an aerodrome with instrument approaches, then you need to be able to suffer the failure of an aid either at the aerodrome or on board (11.7.3.1)

Does that mean that you dont get what I would call a "visual approach exemption" unless the aerodrome has no instrument approaches?
For example if the TAF for your destination says CAVOK do you still need the navigation aid redundancy under CHTR?

Cheers
- James
#3

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1902
  • Thank you received: 98

bobtait replied the topic: Alternate requirements for airfields with no instrument approach and no TAF

Good question James
11.7.3.2 refers to an aerodrome 'which is not served by a radio navigation aid'. Some people interpret that as meaning that if an aerodrome is served by a radio navigation aid (or aids), then you must base your alternate decision on the availability of those aids. Now that is what is said in the AIP.

However, if VMC exists below LSALT on the last route segment, you could be sure that none of the approaches would require an alternate anyway. So the VMC rule would apply whether the aerodrome has a navigation aid or not.
#4

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 4
  • Thank you received: 0

jboyle replied the topic: Alternate requirements for airfields with no instrument approach and no TAF

Thanks Bob,

Does this impact needing an alternate for aids for CHTR flights?
For example, if you have 1 x GNSS and 1 x VOR on the aircraft, and your destination only has an RNAV approach then you would normally need an alternate for CHTR. Is this the case even if conditions indicate you could make a visual approach?

Compare this to the same aircraft flying to an aerodrome without any approaches, as long as the forecast indicates visual conditions you can plan without an alternate.

This seems counterintuitive to me as then the alternate requirements are stricter for aerodromes with approaches vs those without.
#5

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1902
  • Thank you received: 98

bobtait replied the topic: Alternate requirements for airfields with no instrument approach and no TAF

I agree. It's an absolutely ridiculous rule. It means that if you go to an aerodrome with no nav aids you can take advantage of the VMC rule, but if another aerodrome happens to have one nav aid with a published approach procedure, you need an alternate even if it is VMC. So the requirement for a nav aid depends on the existence of a piece of paper and has nothing to do with weather.

I'm sure that's not what they meant, but it is what they wrote.
#6

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.533 seconds