Canadian Alternate Minimums

[rivetor]

Do any companies other than United use Canadian regulations for calculating alternate minimums?

If so, do you know why?
If not, does anyone know why United does?

 

[who'swho]

For flights to Canada? My 1st gig did, the 2nd one says to carry one since it's more complicated than U.S. rules. Short answer... Yes.

 

[Mach82]

FedEx does. Why, because that’s what is required to play in their sandbox. Same with China always needing an alternate listed (wx required or not).

 

[Pepwave1]

FedEx does. Why, because that’s what is required to play in their sandbox. Same with China always needing an alternate listed (wx required or not).

I feel like with China, that more of a "we have mountains. unbelievable mountains" kind of problem.

Maybe with Canada it's because they have so much wild/unsettled territory?

 

[bbmikej]

I worked at a place that always put an alternate going into Mexico because the FSDO said they had to. I'm guessing that's the reason for people using Canadian requirements in Canada.

 

[rivetor]

Does anyone have insight on why some companies do and others don’t? I find it wildly inconsistent and frustrating.

I recognize we all have our own SOPs but I hear some preach it as though it were the Bible which it clearly isn’t

If it’s not obvious I have no real flag/minimal international experience

 

[gopherdx]

My airline uses A012 which only requires an alternate if the flight is scheduled over 6 hours (for now).

 

[who'swho]

Does anyone have insight on why some companies do and others don’t? I find it wildly inconsistent and frustrating.

I recognize we all have our own SOPs but I hear some preach it as though it were the Bible which it clearly isn’t

If it’s not obvious I have no real flag/minimal international experience

It's my understanding, if you operate a flight into a country you need to abide by the FARs (as a U.S. carrier) plus any more restrictive regs that country has. I can't speak to why a carrier wouldn't abide by the Canada alt requirement unless they just aren't aware.

 

[Pepwave1]

It's my understanding, if you operate a flight into a country you need to abide by the FARs (as a U.S. carrier) plus any more restrictive regs that country has. I can't speak to why a carrier wouldn't abide by the Canada alt requirement unless they just aren't aware.

The Canadian ALT requirements are only for GA

 

[///AMG]

After being dispatched to PHX and LAS on "VFR" days with no alternate and minimum fuel, I can say I absolutely don't have a problem with a rule that every 121 flight needs an alternate (and the fuel for one). You get down there, and the winds/shear are out of limits, and you immediately have a big problem if they didn't put you in a hold early (or you request it)......there isn't much time to F around when you have no alternate gas and you are looking at a land there or divert 200 miles

 

[Flagship_dxer]

After being dispatched to PHX and LAS on "VFR" days with no alternate and minimum fuel, I can say I absolutely don't have a problem with a rule that every 121 flight needs an alternate (and the fuel for one). You get down there, and the winds/shear are out of limits, and you immediately have a big problem if they didn't put you in a hold early (or you request it)......there isn't much time to F around when you have no alternate gas and you are looking at a land there or divert 200 miles

An alternate required for every flight would simplify things for dispatchers and eliminate accidental illegal flight plans due to forecast changes. It would also eliminate the busy work of scrambling to add alternates to a dozen flights enroute due to forecast or airport traffic conditions changing.

At the same time, narrowbodies are pretty weight critical especially for max landing weight. An alternate on every flight while more conservative would lead to offload passengers and minimal to no extra fuel for holding being carried trying to carry as much payload as possible. Unless holding and contingency fuel becomes mandated as well, an alternate required on each flight will just lead to more diversions.

 

[///AMG]

An alternate required for every flight would simplify things for dispatchers and eliminate accidental illegal flight plans due to forecast changes. It would so eliminate the busy work of scrambling to add alternates to a dozen flights enroute due to forecast or airport traffic conditions changing.

At the same time, narrowbodies are pretty weight critical especially for max landing weight. An alternate on every flight while more conservative would lead to offload passengers and minimal to no extra fuel for holding being carried trying to carry as much payload as possible. Unless holding and contingency fuel becomes mandated as well, an alternate required on each flight will just lead to more diversions.

Very true as well. There is a downside to everything of course.

 

[flynryan692]

Previous airline had A012 that allowed us to plan Canada and Mexico the same as the US with the 1-2-3.

 

[OttoPilot13]

Previous airline had A012 that allowed us to plan Canada and Mexico the same as the US with the 1-2-3.

Whats interesting is UAL does have A012 and gets to operate to Canada and Mexico using domestic reserves and 1-2-3 for Mexico. But has to use Canadian alt rules...for whatever reason.

 

[Acceptable_Risk]

Whats interesting is UAL does have A012 and gets to operate to Canada and Mexico using domestic reserves and 1-2-3 for Mexico. But has to use Canadian alt rules...for whatever reason.

Fdx is the same. A012 for reserves to Canada and Mexico, but still use Canadian altn rules.

 

[McCrosky]

Ok I’ll ask… what are Canadian alternate rules, eh? What are you guys talking aboot?

 

[bbmikej]

Ok I’ll ask… what are Canadian alternate rules, eh? What are you guys talking aboot?

CAR 721.19

"(2) Weather Requirements

For at least one (1) hour before and until one (1) hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing, there shall be, in respect to that aerodrome:

(a) no risk of fog or other restriction to visibility, including precipitation, forecast or reported, below 3 miles;
(b) no risk of thunderstorms isolated or otherwise forecast or reported;
(c) a forecast ceiling of at least 1,000 feet above FAF altitude and a visibility of at least 3 miles or a ceiling of at least 1,500 feet above the MDA and a visibility of at least 6 miles; and
(d) no risk of freezing rain, freezing drizzle, or sleet forecast or reported;
(3) Aerodrome of Intended Landing - Requirements

(a) the aerodrome of intended landing shall be:
(i) equipped with at least two (2) separate runways each of which shall be operational and suitable for a safe landing for the aeroplane type, taking into consideration the approved operational limitations; and
NOTE: The reciprocal of one runway is not acceptable as the second runway.

(ii) equipped with emergency or standby electrical power supply in support of the main electrical power supply used to operate all equipment and facilities that are essential to the safe landing of the aeroplane, whether such landing be by day or by night."

 

[Htown19]

Basically- if you’re dispatching to Toronto you throw on BUF or DTW and call it a day

 

[who'swho]

CAR 721.19

"(2) Weather Requirements

For at least one (1) hour before and until one (1) hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing, there shall be, in respect to that aerodrome:

(a) no risk of fog or other restriction to visibility, including precipitation, forecast or reported, below 3 miles;
(b) no risk of thunderstorms isolated or otherwise forecast or reported;
(c) a forecast ceiling of at least 1,000 feet above FAF altitude and a visibility of at least 3 miles or a ceiling of at least 1,500 feet above the MDA and a visibility of at least 6 miles; and
(d) no risk of freezing rain, freezing drizzle, or sleet forecast or reported;
(3) Aerodrome of Intended Landing - Requirements

(a) the aerodrome of intended landing shall be:
(i) equipped with at least two (2) separate runways each of which shall be operational and suitable for a safe landing for the aeroplane type, taking into consideration the approved operational limitations; and
NOTE: The reciprocal of one runway is not acceptable as the second runway.

(ii) equipped with emergency or standby electrical power supply in support of the main electrical power supply used to operate all equipment and facilities that are essential to the safe landing of the aeroplane, whether such landing be by day or by night."

 

[Spatcher]

Am I the only one that thinks Canadian mins are far easier to calculate than US?