Take-off alternate?

F9DXER

Well-Known Member
Would you add one based on this notam for a weekend departure? Why/Why not?


A0497/15 NOTAMN
Q) LSAS/QFALT/IV/NBO/A/000/999/4614N00607E005
A) LSGG B) 1603190000 C) 1604172359
D) SAT SUN H24
E) AD NOT TO BE PLANNED FOR DIV OR ALTN.
CREATED: 05 Nov 2015 09:01:00
SOURCE: LSSNYNYX
 
I don't have any experience with international dispatching, so my answer is from a domestic US perspective.. so I'll stick my neck out first!

I wouldn't, is my inclination, because if the aircraft would have a need to return to the field it certainly would not be 'planned.' More likely than not you would be having an emergency situation. It seems to me this notam is just saying they don't want any mess from other airports spilling over, for whatever reason. Correct me if I'm wrong about this...

I think the interesting question is would you return to the field over an issue of questionable significance (not an emergency) like if you have a potable water leak into the cabin that only springs on takeoff?
 
I would have no qualms returning to the field. I too think they are trying to keep spillage from other airports to a minimum for whatever reason
 
If I had other viable options I would be inclined to file a different takeoff alternate, though if this was my only choice I would feel comfortable listing it. Without further information it's difficult to tell what compelled them to file this NOTAM, but since any circumstance by which I would need to utilize a takeoff alternate would be after declaring an emergency then this is no longer an "alternate" per se.
 
There was a NOTAM like this hanging around at KCHS for awhile, and I called the tower to see if they had any further explanation. It was just a ramp construction thing where they wanted to avoid taking several unscheduled aircraft on a construction-limited ramp. I think the same thing may still be going on KOKC.

In this case, I'd probably take the CYA strategy and just file a takeoff alternate. It makes me wonder though -- if you don't file a takeoff alternate, is it assumed for planning purposes that if the need were to arise, the aircraft can and should return to the departure airport? Is that considered an implicit part of the flight plan, even if it is not listed explicitly as the preferred destination for a post-takeoff diversion? If you take that interpretation, then it defies the NOTAM's instructions. That's where I would probably not F with it, and tack on a T/O ALT that's reliable. Then again, I think most would agree that the NOTAM would instantly become moot if the need did arise, because that need would almost always entail some kind of emergency condition, as pljenkins explained.
 
The notam tells you exactly what you need to know. The airport shall not be used for a "planned" diversion or alternate. If you are needing to "plan" a takeoff alternate, you are adding a different airport. The need to return to that airport would be for emergency purposes only, and therefore is not a planned scenario. That's my interpretation anyway. I would not add a takeoff alternate unless the weather dictated it.
 
Always irritating to me to see long chains of letters that mean something that are not WORDS. I realize that back in the not to far past, it saved ink/paper. Not so much anymore. Can't they just write what they mean? /rant
 
Switzerland is notorious for this NOTAM. If I am originating out of Geneva, no takeoff alternate needed, as I am returning to my origin. I would not list this as a TALT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kilo said:
There was a NOTAM like this hanging around at KCHS for awhile, and I called the tower to see if they had any further explanation. It was just a ramp construction thing where they wanted to avoid taking several unscheduled aircraft on a construction-limited ramp. I think the same thing may still be going on KOKC.

In this case, I'd probably take the CYA strategy and just file a takeoff alternate. It makes me wonder though -- if you don't file a takeoff alternate, is it assumed for planning purposes that if the need were to arise, the aircraft can and should return to the departure airport? Is that considered an implicit part of the flight plan, even if it is not listed explicitly as the preferred destination for a post-takeoff diversion? If you take that interpretation, then it defies the NOTAM's instructions. That's where I would probably not F with it, and tack on a T/O ALT that's reliable. Then again, I think most would agree that the NOTAM would instantly become moot if the need did arise, because that need would almost always entail some kind of emergency condition, as pljenkins explained.

Well, the only legal requirement for a takeoff alternate is if a landing at the departure airport is questionable (wx below approach mins). That being said, there are at least three airports that WN operates out of where if a need arose to "return to the airport" they would go somewhere else, and that would be KMDW (divert to KORD) KBUR (divert to one of the long runways in the Valley), and KDAL (departure to the north aims you directly at KDFW, which is safer then turning). Though a takeoff alternate is listed, the captain upon declaring an emergency is going to do what he feels most comfortable doing, so listing one is a matter of semantics.
 
Well, the only legal requirement for a takeoff alternate is if a landing at the departure airport is questionable (wx below approach mins). That being said, there are at least three airports that WN operates out of where if a need arose to "return to the airport" they would go somewhere else, and that would be KMDW (divert to KORD) KBUR (divert to one of the long runways in the Valley), and KDAL (departure to the north aims you directly at KDFW, which is safer then turning). Though a takeoff alternate is listed, the captain upon declaring an emergency is going to do what he feels most comfortable doing, so listing one is a matter of semantics.
How is SNA not on your list?
 
Would you add one based on this notam for a weekend departure? Why/Why not?


A0497/15 NOTAMN
Q) LSAS/QFALT/IV/NBO/A/000/999/4614N00607E005
A) LSGG B) 1603190000 C) 1604172359
D) SAT SUN H24
E) AD NOT TO BE PLANNED FOR DIV OR ALTN.
CREATED: 05 Nov 2015 09:01:00
SOURCE: LSSNYNYX

I would as putting a Take off alt is planning for the possiblity of a divert past V1 past the TOA limits. However, as PLJ stated, the PIC will go were he deems fit.
 
Delta Echo said:
I would as putting a Take off alt is planning for the possiblity of a divert past V1 past the TOA limits. However, as PLJ stated, the PIC will go were he deems fit.

So if wx was severe clear, you would put a takeoff alternate on this? Just clarifying.
 
I would as putting a Take off alt is planning for the possiblity of a divert past V1 past the TOA limits. However, as PLJ stated, the PIC will go were he deems fit.
tumblr_inline_mlc4hcMi2K1qz4rgp_zpsc92f7b27.gif
 
womanpilot73 said:
So if wx was severe clear, you would put a takeoff alternate on this? Just clarifying.

Well, no... One can surmise that in all but a few circumstances when weather isn't a factor the most expeditious way to get back on the ground is a return to the departure field. The MDW->ORD and DAL>DFW examples are unique in that a more suitable airport is effectively right off the nose of the airplane at rotation.
 
pljenkins said:
Well, no... One can surmise that in all but a few circumstances when weather isn't a factor the most expeditious way to get back on the ground is a return to the departure field. The MDW->ORD and DAL>DFW examples are unique in that a more suitable airport is effectively right off the nose of the airplane at rotation.

Yeah, was addressing someone else ;-)
 
So if wx was severe clear, you would put a takeoff alternate on this? Just clarifying.

In this case I based the need off the NOTAM phrohibiting diversions. If a flight RTF it would still be diversion from it's filed plan. That is the planning side of this. In actually the PIC may elect to declare and RTF, however as far as planning goes I've done my part in regards to the NOTAM.
 
Delta Echo said:
In this case I based the need off the NOTAM phrohibiting diversions. If a flight RTF it would still be diversion from it's filed plan. That is the planning side of this. In actually the PIC may elect to declare and RTF, however as far as planning goes I've done my part in regards to the NOTAM.

Interesting at the different interpretations here. I didn't see this notam prohibiting diversions but rather as saying do not use for "planned" diversions or alternate. I also look at an air turnback as an emergency situation and therefore not planned. And if wx did not require a takeoff alternate, I would not list one. Thanks for indulging me...was just curious as to your thoughts.
 
Back
Top