If your flight does not need an alternate when you originally create your release however after takeoff the weather at destination decreases and an alternate is required, are your legally (FAR's) required to add an alternate? Or is it legal to start legal to finish? I know common sense says obviously update the crew and ad an alternate but just curious because you might not have the required fuel reserves for an alternate after the flight has already departed and wasn't originally planned for.
Destination needing an alternate after takeoff
- Thread starter Zona
- Start date
PlaneFan82
Well-Known Member
No. you do not, however, be proactive and start looking for options in the area should your destination drop below landing minimums (unless you are a CATIIIb carrier, than tally-ho)!
CPZ9900
Well-Known Member
per the FARs no... but company policy may dictate that you do. Definitely you should inform the PIC of the changes in the weather and most of the time they will continue. If it is a safety of flight issue, then yes you do need to add one and stop for fuel should you not have enough on board. However, it is always good to provide options to the PIC, burns, etc...
pljenkins
Resident Knucklehead
nyk said:
That can't be right. You can't amend a release to add an alternate if doing so requires you burn into the 45 minute reserves. If unplanned circumstances cause you to burn into the reserves THAT is what it's there for. Key word is "unplanned". An amendment is a plan.
PlaneFan82
Well-Known Member
Yup...that's an ASAP waiting to be filed.That can't be right. You can't amend a release to add an alternate if doing so requires you burn into the 45 minute reserves. If unplanned circumstances cause you to burn into the reserves THAT is what it's there for. Key word is "unplanned". An amendment is a plan.
BoilerOps
Well-Known Member
Yeah I think some vital interpretations of regulations are being overlooked here. Plenty of people look at regs and interpret the absent of an explicit statement as an absolution of responsibility but, in reality, you have to factor in implicit statements as well. These may include:
"can the flight crew legally initiate an approach to their destination?"
"can the flight proceed safely?"
"can the flight divert to a planned alternate?"
If you ever answer no to all 3 of those questions I don't think anyone at the FAA would have a problem violating you on the spot for not doing something about it.
"can the flight crew legally initiate an approach to their destination?"
"can the flight proceed safely?"
"can the flight divert to a planned alternate?"
If you ever answer no to all 3 of those questions I don't think anyone at the FAA would have a problem violating you on the spot for not doing something about it.
nyk
Well-Known Member
What I had meant which might have not come across the way I wanted via the internet is that yes have a plan but not list it as an alternate on the release but let the CA know hey this is the plan IF we need to divert.That can't be right. You can't amend a release to add an alternate if doing so requires you burn into the 45 minute reserves. If unplanned circumstances cause you to burn into the reserves THAT is what it's there for. Key word is "unplanned". An amendment is a plan.
pljenkins
Resident Knucklehead
I think the word "plan" is tripping me up on this. The concept behind "safe to continue" opens the door to interpretation, to be sure and had been the source of many a debate between dispatchers who didn't feel pressing in was the wisest choice vs. Management that has to deal with the resulting schedule distribution. Sometimes the answer is obvious. Destination that was forecasted VMC suddenly finds itself at approach minimums, say. The idea of "safe to continue" is to eliminate diversions when the airport that was forecasting say a scattered layer at 1800 finds itself with BKN 1800 while you're enroute. Clearly it would be a severe waste of money to divert for that because you didn't carry the gas for an alternate, and I certainly wouldn't be concerned about being able to land. Generally the rule of thumb I go by is if I at any time find myself thinking "hope it holds up" I'm not firmly in "safe to continue" territory and it's time to have a conversation about a "plan B".
Mach82
Well-Known Member
I had this happen the other day with KDEN. METARs all morning were reporting 1/4sm-3/4sm RVR2000v4000. TAF called for it to clear after 18z and my ETA was 1950z. The PIC called about it and we both agreed that it was out of the 1-2-3 rule for requiring an alternate. They departed KORD enroute to KDEN, I'm just sitting there watching the METARs remain unchanged while my flight draws closer. Seeing as how the NWS is notorious for chasing METARs (no pun towards those weather folks out there), about an hour out I went ahead and added KCPR as the alternate just in case something did happen even though all the flights were getting in. Of course they made it in ok.
To answer your question, I look at it this way. Since our paperwork is due 1 hr before ETD and it is forecast to be good when the paperwork is sent, no issue. If it changes to require before they push, I advise to withhold the push and call for more fuel as I'm working the numbers to add an ALT. Otherwise once they push and under their own power, the paperwork is legal. Keyword here: under their own power. (But I still keep a plan B up my sleeve just in case)
To answer your question, I look at it this way. Since our paperwork is due 1 hr before ETD and it is forecast to be good when the paperwork is sent, no issue. If it changes to require before they push, I advise to withhold the push and call for more fuel as I'm working the numbers to add an ALT. Otherwise once they push and under their own power, the paperwork is legal. Keyword here: under their own power. (But I still keep a plan B up my sleeve just in case)