Hello all,
I find the alternate requirements with regards to aerodrome forecasts to be ambiguous.
ENR 1.1 - 58.1.3 states when an aerodrome forecast is not avialable an alternate must be provided.
It seems to me that if I plan to a destination without an instrument approach, therefor only require an area forecast (ENR 1.10 - 1.2.1), and the conditions of that forecast are above the minima (ENR 1.1 - 58.2.12 c.). I still must plan to an alternate merely on the fact that 'an aerodrome forecast is not available'.

Should this rule not be worded more like ENR 1.10 - 1.2.3

Let me know what you think.

Hi eddy

My interpretation is that if you nominate an aerodrome as an alternate and it doesn't have a forecast then you need to follow the LSALT minima based on the area forecast. Generally this only applies to aerodromes that don't have a radio nav aid or have one which you are not qualifies to use. If the area forecast does not suggest the areodrome as a suitable alternate then if no taf or a provisional taf exists then it is not suitable alternate.

I agree that there is ambiguity there but I think it assumes that the area forecast has cloud cover below the LSALT+500 minima and therefore the airfield needs an unconditional taf..

Hope is helps

Cheers

Richard

Thanks for your input Richard. I was more confused if I needed to nominate an alternate in the first place.
Here's an example.

I am planning to a destination which has no instrument approach proceedure. Because there is no instrument approach available, I only require an area forecast and the minima is LSALT+500 and 8KM VIS. This is clearly written in the textbook and the AIP. Assuming the weather was above the minima, I could proceed to this destination without providing an alternate.

This all seems fine until I read ENR 1.1 58.1.3, which states if an aerodrome forecast is not available then provisions for an alternate must be made.
The above example has a destination which has no instrument approach proceedure. The textbook states that this also means it has no TAF (I can't find a AIP reference for this though). So I have to plan for an alternate. So what is the use of the above minima if I'm going to have to plan an alternate anyway.

Hey eddy

I think the distinction is that you should read it as where a forecast is normally available but isn't at the time you need it or is available but is provisional you need an alternate.i don't think it includes non approach aerodromes. I think it is expecting that you are already unable to use the LSALT+500 minima and are hoping or expecting to have to conduct an instrument approach.
If you think about an ifr flight plan the first thing you establish is whether you are likely to need an instrument approach based on the area forecast; ie will I become visual? If not, I will plan an instrument approach and then I need the TAF and now this rule applies; not available? Provisional? Therefore I need an alternate.

Hope this helps

Richard

Hi Eddy; my two bob's worth - having passed the IREX with a much lower mark than I expected I agree with you about the ambiguity of these rules.

But here goes>

Look at the intro for Alternate Aerodromes, General 1.1 58.1.1 where it states "WHEN REQUIRED". I interpret this as meaning when you look at the flight in context, IF you want to make an instrument approach, you need an airport forecast but if you are simply doing a Visual approach then an ARFOR is OK. So, 58.1.3 only applies for an instrument approach.

There are of course other rules about alternates when you are flying a charter or NVMC and depending on the instruments available at the landing site.

Check out ENR 1.1 - 58.2.12 (C)

Most VMC flights will be OK using an ARFOR to establish LSALT +500

Don't get confused with Visual and VFR, Visual is a legitimate part of an IFR procedure but VFR of course is Visual Flight Rules which you can also fly by discontinuing the IFR at any stage providing the weather permits. (hope this makes sense)

see 58.3.2 (a) and (b)

Hope this helps.

This one has come up a few times before. I have submitted a request to CASA for clarification but have had no response on this one either. The common sense interpretation would be that if an aerodrome has an instrument approach procedure which you cannot use because you are not equipped or not qualified or current, the alternate minima would be LSALT over the last route segment + 500 and 8k visibility.

However the AIP wording says that that is only available for an aerodrome WITHOUT a published instrument approach procedure.

That leaves us with the crazy situation where, on a perfectly clear day, with no cloud and unlimited visibility, I can plan to an aerodrome without the need for an alternate providing that aerodrome has NO published instrument approach procedure.

However if that aerodrome does have an instrument approach procedure which I cannot use, I must plan for an alternate no matter what the weather may be.

That means that the alternate requirement depends on the existence of a piece of paper!!

Thank you all for helping. I suppose it comes down to interpreting the rules with common sense and ignoring any condratictions. With all these amendments I constantly receive it shouldn't be too hard to tidy these rules.