Reconsidering 121.619

QXDX

QXDX

Well-Known Member
For some time now, I've been thinking about the rules that allow us to not list an alternate for each destination. The 1-2-3 rule doesn't sit well with me, for a number of reasons. I favor something along the lines of the the Canadian rules, where the alternate/no alternate decision is based on a number of factors, including:

Single or multiple runways;
The presence of hazardous weather (i.e. thunderstorms, freezing rain, freezing drizzle);
Ceiling and visibility requirements predicated on approach minimums.

It seems to me these rules add more safety while simultaneously giving operators greater flexibility.

Discuss.
 
A lot of dispatchers feel as you do, and at some companies where keeping gas tight isnt an operational goal, they will.

As long as the pilots know the first hiccup means an unplanned diversion, im fine with the usa way. I see good things about both sides.
 
It's all a delicate balancing act. For a lot of flights in the US it is the whole safe/smart vs legal debate. While the forecast may meet the 1-2-3 rule for a place like Dallas even though there is a thunderstorm approaching, is it really the smart thing to do to send a flight in without an alternate? Also, when it comes to single runway airports, there are a number in the US. If there is a clear and a million day, what is the point of adding the alternate? There is usually another airport close that you can make if something were to happen along the way (in fact some airlines predicate hold fuel on how far away the nearest suitable airport is).

With some aircraft types, adding an alternate can start limiting payload due to structural landing weights. Adding an alternate on a clear day would start to kick passengers just because the destination only has one usable runway.
 
The problem is that you could have a
Tempo 3SM BKN015 and have the WX look very different each time.

How many times have you sent a release based on a new TAF just to have it changed to 3SM BKN018 just 5 min before departure?
The WX hasn’t changed. No new alerts.


My point is that the TAFs that get put out a lot of times are trash. It seems like a lot of CYA from the government.
 
DogwoodLynx said:
The problem is that you could have a
Tempo 3SM BKN015 and have the WX look very different each time.

How many times have you sent a release based on a new TAF just to have it changed to 3SM BKN018 just 5 min before departure?
The WX hasn’t changed. No new alerts.


My point is that the TAFs that get put out a lot of times are trash. It seems like a lot of CYA from the government.
Click to expand...

And this is where the value of a dispatcher comes in. Since this has happened to us before, we know what a forecast should look like for the current weather. We can use our experience to determine what is smart when it comes to flight planning, If you go the route of every flight needs an alternate, why not just have a computer make your flights for you.
 
I think this would be my revision to 121.619.

1 hour before one hour after, 1500 foot ceiling with a precision approach available
2000 with a non precision approach available, 3 miles vis, and no risk of freezing precip/thunderstorm (in the vicinity included). you should be able to omit an alternate on those circumstances.

I'm not sure adding an alternate just because an airport has one runway adds a layer of safety
that is actually needed, especially in the US given how many airports there are that can be landed at by airliners and see regular service.
Just because a cessna could pancake on the runway doesn't necessarily mean we need to plan for it. We have reserve fuel for a reason and you as a dispatcher should also be adding contingency fuel and alternates as appropriate anyways.
 
autosave36 said:
I think this would be my revision to 121.619.

1 hour before one hour after, 1500 foot ceiling with a precision approach available
2000 with a non precision approach available, 3 miles vis, and no risk of freezing precip/thunderstorm (in the vicinity included). you should be able to omit an alternate on those circumstances.

I'm not sure adding an alternate just because an airport has one runway adds a layer of safety
that is actually needed, especially in the US given how many airports there are that can be landed at by airliners and see regular service.
Just because a cessna could pancake on the runway doesn't necessarily mean we need to plan for it. We have reserve fuel for a reason and you as a dispatcher should also be adding contingency fuel and alternates as appropriate anyways.
Click to expand...


I think the amount of Contingency Fuel on board is more important than an arbitrary number. Most of the time you'd be fine with 45 minutes of holding fuel because you know that eventually you'll get in, and while you don't necessarily WANT to land at an airport you don't already service (if you don't make the destination), its still an option.
 
121 doesn’t do the 1500+ lowest circling MDA, or where there is no circling MDA 1500+ lowest DH or minimum 2000’ AGL?
 
gotWXdagain said:
121 doesn’t do the 1500+ lowest circling MDA, or where there is no circling MDA 1500+ lowest DH or minimum 2000’ AGL?
Click to expand...
Yes that is a 121 reg but its for flag ops.

§121.621 Alternate airport for destination: Flag operations.
(a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over-the-top unless he lists at least one alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release, unless—

(1) The flight is scheduled for not more than 6 hours and, for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport, the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate the ceiling will be:

(i) At least 1,500 feet above the lowest circling MDA, if a circling approach is required and authorized for that airport; or

(ii) At least 1,500 feet above the lowest published instrument approach minimum or 2,000 feet above the airport elevation, whichever is greater; and

(iii) The visibility at that airport will be at least 3 miles, or 2 miles more than the lowest applicable visibility minimums, whichever is greater, for the instrument approach procedures to be used at the destination airport; or

(2) The flight is over a route approved without an available alternate airport for a particular destination airport and the airplane has enough fuel to meet the requirements of §121.641(b) or §121.645(c).

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the weather conditions at the alternate airport must meet the requirements of the certificate holder's operations specifications.

(c) No person may dispatch a flight unless he lists each required alternate airport in the dispatch release.
Click to expand...
 
QXDX said:
Single or multiple runways;
The presence of hazardous weather (i.e. thunderstorms, freezing rain, freezing drizzle);
Ceiling and visibility requirements predicated on approach minimums.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

121.647 takes care of all of that.

Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:

(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.

(b) Anticipated traffic delays.

(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.

(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.
 
In terms of the
(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.
would the missed approach part include trying the approach again or just going missed and right to the alternate?
 
At my shop alternate fuel includes a missed approach plus the burn. I would imagine most flight planning software employs a similar strategy. Also I feel like planning for a possible missed approach should have some other justification attached to it like low ceilings/vis or compacted arrival demand due to runway closures or something like it. No, I won't be planning for an unstable approach or LLWS on short final.
 
MIADX said:
Also I feel like planning for a possible missed approach should have some other justification attached to it like low ceilings/vis or compacted arrival demand due to runway closures or something like it. No, I won't be planning for an unstable approach or LLWS on short final.
Click to expand...

But what if a pilot sees smth unexpected on a RWY and have to go around? I don't know... a dog, a cow, a person, or smth fell from another plane that had just taken off a moment ago?
 
How could I and why should I be planning for FOD or a runway incursion when my release is sent over an hour before departure?
An12 said:
But what if a pilot sees smth unexpected on a RWY and have to go around? I don't know... a dog, a cow, a person, or smth fell from another plane that had just taken off a moment ago?
Click to expand...
 
An12 said:
But what if a pilot sees smth unexpected on a RWY and have to go around? I don't know... a dog, a cow, a person, or smth fell from another plane that had just taken off a moment ago?
Click to expand...

I can play this game too!!

What if a meteor falls out of the sky and takes out the runway!?!?

If we were planning for every scenario we would never get off the ground. We have reserve in case something unexpected happens. We can't plan to use that fuel, but how can you plan on the unexpected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top