How To File an IFR Flight Plan With No Weather

[DHC-1 Jockey]

For those of you not in the know, there is currently a complete nation-wide loss of aviation weather. The NavCanada site, third-party apps and even the FAA's METAR page are showing no information for all Canadian airports. There are still TAF's that were produced a few hours ago, but soon they'll start to be outdated as well.

My question is: how will the airlines continue to operate if they can't get forecasted weather to be able to list an alternate on the IFR flight plan?

The GFA's are still being produced, but the higher limits required to use a GFA would probably preclude using them. I also assume The Weather Network is not a valid source for legal alternate weather.

So, if this outage continues, can a pilot/dispatcher legally file an IFR flight plan?

[dustyroads]

For those of you not in the know, there is currently a complete nation-wide loss of aviation weather. The NavCanada site, third-party apps and even the FAA's METAR page are showing no information for all Canadian airports. There are still TAF's that were produced a few hours ago, but soon they'll start to be outdated as well.

My question is: how will the airlines continue to operate if they can't get forecasted weather to be able to list an alternate on the IFR flight plan?

The GFA's are still being produced, but the higher limits required to use a GFA would probably preclude using them. I also assume The Weather Network is not a valid source for legal alternate weather.

So, if this outage continues, can a pilot/dispatcher legally file an IFR flight plan?

You’re not accurate. The metars and tafs are still available. Just because you can’t see them via a certain outlet doesn’t mean there isn’t any.

[CpnCrunch]

You’re not accurate. The metars and tafs are still available. Just because you can’t see them via a certain outlet doesn’t mean there isn’t any.

They are available again now, but earlier today they were not available even on the CFPS website. No mention on the CFPS website about the outage though.

[digits_]

The GFA's are still being produced, but the higher limits required to use a GFA would probably preclude using them. I also assume The Weather Network is not a valid source for legal alternate weather.

So, if this outage continues, can a pilot/dispatcher legally file an IFR flight plan?

If you can get the metar and taf somewhere else (or GFA), you should be good. I don't think the rules require you to access them through a government source.

If you can't, then I think you're stuck with GFA limitations. Or I suppose you could phone the airports directly?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

You’re not accurate. The metars and tafs are still available. Just because you can’t see them via a certain outlet doesn’t mean there isn’t any.

I'm a tower controller, and we didn't have any METAR information. I spoke to our American counterparts and they couldn't see any of our weather either.

I then looked on the CFPS website, ForeFlight, aviation.gov (Which can pull up Canadian weather) and my AeroWeather app and none of them had METAR's being produced, although there were TAF's that were still valid until the outage was resolved.

From an academic standpoint, if the outage continued, my question is still valid: How would airlines legally be able to file IFR flight plans if the TAF's began to expire and there was no forecasted weather?

I'm not sure many foreign dispatchers filing flights to Canada would know that they can use a GFA for the purposes of alternate filing, and the limits are so prohibitive they probably wouldn't be able to use a GFA in many cases anyways.

[PostmasterGeneral]

Airlines use their own programs and some have meteorologists on staff. There are lots of ways to retrieve METAR/TAF data that’s not on the NavCanada site.

[CpnCrunch]

Airlines use their own programs and some have meteorologists on staff. There are lots of ways to retrieve METAR/TAF data that’s not on the NavCanada site.

But the question is: was that data available yesterday during the outage? We still have no idea what actually happened.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Airlines use their own programs and some have meteorologists on staff. There are lots of ways to retrieve METAR/TAF data that’s not on the NavCanada site.

The weather is produced by NavCanada and disseminated out to the various websites, apps, etc. An airline dispatch operation isn't producing their own weather forecasts. The weather produced by NavCanada is the weather that a legal alternate is based on, because the CARS/CAP GEN specify the alternate minima, which is based off the TAF. Same with a departure alternate if the weather is near minimums at your departure airport.

If there's no TAF (which is the legal weather required to plan a legal alternate), what information is a meteorologist using?

Or lets say you're a private pilot wanting to file an IFR flight plan? You certainly don't have all of the tools that a major flight department or airline has.

Having been a controller and a pilot with several 705 airlines, if the NavCan weather was down for a significant period, I don't see how one can determine the IFR alternate weather to file a legal alternate. The weather network won't cut it, and none of the other sources that receive the NavCanada weather (ADDS, ForeFlight, AeroWeather, etc) weren't getting that weather either. If there's no TAF being produced, what weather are you basing your alternate on?

[cdnavater]

Airlines use their own programs and some have meteorologists on staff. There are lots of ways to retrieve METAR/TAF data that’s not on the NavCanada site.

The weather is produced by NavCanada and disseminated out to the various websites, apps, etc. An airline dispatch operation isn't producing their own weather forecasts. The weather produced by NavCanada is the weather that a legal alternate is based on, because the CARS/CAP GEN specify the alternate minima, which is based off the TAF. Same with a departure alternate if the weather is near minimums at your departure airport.

If there's no TAF (which is the legal weather required to plan a legal alternate), what information is a meteorologist using?

Or lets say you're a private pilot wanting to file an IFR flight plan? You certainly don't have all of the tools that a major flight department or airline has.

Having been a controller and a pilot with several 705 airlines, if the NavCan weather was down for a significant period, I don't see how one can determine the IFR alternate weather to file a legal alternate. The weather network won't cut it, and none of the other sources that receive the NavCanada weather (ADDS, ForeFlight, AeroWeather, etc) weren't getting that weather either. If there's no TAF being produced, what weather are you basing your alternate on?

I would guess a big chunk of the flights would end up carrying extra fuel for a U.S alternate, as I assume the outage was Canada, most of the international airlines coming to Canada are to airports close to the U.S, probably didn’t bat an eye.

[goingnowherefast]

If it lasted too long and TAFs began to expire, I bet flights would start to get canceled. If the weather is good enough, controlled VFR for those that can do it.

Many of the northern operators don't have a FAA OC to operate in the US. Can't use a US alternate.

[digits_]

If it lasted too long and TAFs began to expire, I bet flights would start to get canceled. If the weather is good enough, controlled VFR for those that can do it.

Many of the northern operators don't have a FAA OC to operate in the US. Can't use a US alternate.

Doesn't mean you can't file it... Grey area that would likely get you into trouble if you did end up using it, but if it's merely as a formality, it could be an option.

[OnceAgainWithFeeling]

If it lasted too long and TAFs began to expire, I bet flights would start to get canceled. If the weather is good enough, controlled VFR for those that can do it.

Many of the northern operators don't have a FAA OC to operate in the US. Can't use a US alternate.

Doesn't mean you can't file it... Grey area that would likely get you into trouble if you did end up using it, but if it's merely as a formality, it could be an option.

At what exact point in time does the requirement to have an alternate destination with adequate forecasted weather crystalise? Is it when you collect a TAF, when you file the flight plan, or when you take off? If it's either of the last two, are you required to re-check the TAF you used to see it hasn't been amended between when you collected it and when you file or are about to depart?

Or is an adequate TAF at any of those times acceptable in law?

[cdnavater]

If it lasted too long and TAFs began to expire, I bet flights would start to get canceled. If the weather is good enough, controlled VFR for those that can do it.

Many of the northern operators don't have a FAA OC to operate in the US. Can't use a US alternate.

Doesn't mean you can't file it... Grey area that would likely get you into trouble if you did end up using it, but if it's merely as a formality, it could be an option.

At what exact point in time does the requirement to have an alternate destination with adequate forecasted weather crystalise? Is it when you collect a TAF, when you file the flight plan, or when you take off? If it's either of the last two, are you required to re-check the TAF you used to see it hasn't been amended between when you collected it and when you file or are about to depart?

Or is an adequate TAF at any of those times acceptable in law?

When you file, after that it would be considered airmanship to have a look and make sure nothing changed.
In our COM, we have a table that sets out when we need a new alternate but doesn’t specifically state when or if we need to check the TAF enroute. It is implied because under certain forecast changes we need to designate a new alternate, however our dispatch would also be monitoring the weather.
The CARs reference the CAP for alternate weather and the CAP makes no mention of when the alternate weather takes effect but you need a legal alternate to file a flight plan.

[goingnowherefast]

If it lasted too long and TAFs began to expire, I bet flights would start to get canceled. If the weather is good enough, controlled VFR for those that can do it.

Many of the northern operators don't have a FAA OC to operate in the US. Can't use a US alternate.

Doesn't mean you can't file it... Grey area that would likely get you into trouble if you did end up using it, but if it's merely as a formality, it could be an option.

At what exact point in time does the requirement to have an alternate destination with adequate forecasted weather crystalise? Is it when you collect a TAF, when you file the flight plan, or when you take off? If it's either of the last two, are you required to re-check the TAF you used to see it hasn't been amended between when you collected it and when you file or are about to depart?

Or is an adequate TAF at any of those times acceptable in law?

That's a very good point. I have heard someone say "quick, file your flight plan before they amend the TAF".

There is also a lot of flight plans filed hours in advance on multi leg journeys. The final departure location will be remote and has no access to weather information. The TAF was legal and valid when collected 6 hours ago. Then the flight plan filed. Meanwhile, we could be 2 TAF cycles later by the time they actually depart from the remote location.

I'd argue that any TAF can be used within it's validity period. Should push come to shove, one would have to defend why they used an older TAF when newer ones might have been available. Remote aerodrome is a much better, and reasonable excuse as compared to "newer one sucked, so ignored it"

[digits_]

If it lasted too long and TAFs began to expire, I bet flights would start to get canceled. If the weather is good enough, controlled VFR for those that can do it.

Many of the northern operators don't have a FAA OC to operate in the US. Can't use a US alternate.

Doesn't mean you can't file it... Grey area that would likely get you into trouble if you did end up using it, but if it's merely as a formality, it could be an option.

At what exact point in time does the requirement to have an alternate destination with adequate forecasted weather crystalise? Is it when you collect a TAF, when you file the flight plan, or when you take off? If it's either of the last two, are you required to re-check the TAF you used to see it hasn't been amended between when you collected it and when you file or are about to depart?

Or is an adequate TAF at any of those times acceptable in law?

I can't find anything that specifies that. The rules / cap gen only state that the TAF needs to be available, and talk about a weather window where the weather needs to meet certain minimas. But if you have an airport that has a 36 hour TAF, and after 12 hours the weather forecast changes completely to below minimas, I'm not sure if you're legally in the wrong. It would make sense to get an update right before you leave, but I can't find it defined anywhere.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

At my old 705 airline, I believe it was a requirement of the dispatchers to check that the alternate weather still was legal at least once during the flight.

That is, a legal alternate was determined before departure and that was filed on the flight plan. Then, around the midpoint of the flight, the dispatcher had to check that the alternate weather was still above alternate minima, and if it wasn't, the alternate was changed en-route.

It wasn't super common, but more than once I was en-route and I got an ACARS message from dispatch advising us that our alternate has changed, and they even provided new routing, times, and fuel requirements. I've even had it where our original alternate was a fair distance away and so we had to carry lots of extra fuel. Then en-route, a closer airport's weather improved enough that we were able to switch alternates to a closer airport which gave us more holding time at the planned destination if needed.

Of course if the weather was dicey, I'd be looking at all of this already myself, but it was comforting to know that I had people on the ground looking after us as well.

[digits_]

At my old 705 airline, I believe it was a requirement of the dispatchers to check that the alternate weather still was legal at least once during the flight.

That is, a legal alternate was determined before departure and that was filed on the flight plan. Then, around the midpoint of the flight, the dispatcher had to check that the alternate weather was still above alternate minima, and if it wasn't, the alternate was changed en-route.

It wasn't super common, but more than once I was en-route and I got an ACARS message from dispatch advising us that our alternate has changed, and they even provided new routing, times, and fuel requirements.

Of course if the weather was dicey, I'd be looking at that already myself, but it was comforting to know that I had people on the ground looking after us as well.

Was that on every flight, or only on longer ones where you don't have enough fuel to legally make it to your destination with 10% contingency so you have a 'phantom' destination in the middle where you're never intending to go anyway?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Was that on every flight, or only on longer ones where you don't have enough fuel to legally make it to your destination with 10% contingency so you have a 'phantom' destination in the middle where you're never intending to go anyway?

No we never had a "phantom destination." Everything was legit and we'd bump passengers and/or cargo if the numbers didn't work.

Unless you're referencing this idea which I actually asked on here about almost 5 years ago:

Here’s a thought experiment I’m trying to figure out.

You’re flying IFR and your intended destination is London, ON (CYXU). It has a precision approach (ILS). The only alternate within your fuel range is St. Thomas (CYQS) which is 20 NM away. It only has non-precision approaches and no weather reporting.

The weather is CAVOK in London, but the weather is below alternate minima for St. Thomas at your expected time of arrival, so you legally can’t complete the flight as you have no legal alternate.

Is there any legality with filing St. Thomas as your destination on paper and London as your alternate, and while airborne, just telling ATC you wish to divert to your alternate (which was your intended destination all along)?

I don’t see any reason why this would not be allowed, although it might not be a good idea if the weather is marginal at both airports.

I never even considered this loophole while flying 703/704 around Northern Ontario... the idea just came to me yesterday when it was 1/2 mile 200’ in London, but clear and a million in St. Thomas only 20 miles away.

[digits_]

Was that on every flight, or only on longer ones where you don't have enough fuel to legally make it to your destination with 10% contingency so you have a 'phantom' destination in the middle where you're never intending to go anyway?

No we never had a "phantom destination." Everything was legit and we'd bump passengers and/or cargo if the numbers didn't work.

Unless you're referencing this idea which I actually asked on here about almost 5 years ago:

Here’s a thought experiment I’m trying to figure out.

You’re flying IFR and your intended destination is London, ON (CYXU). It has a precision approach (ILS). The only alternate within your fuel range is St. Thomas (CYQS) which is 20 NM away. It only has non-precision approaches and no weather reporting.

The weather is CAVOK in London, but the weather is below alternate minima for St. Thomas at your expected time of arrival, so you legally can’t complete the flight as you have no legal alternate.

Is there any legality with filing St. Thomas as your destination on paper and London as your alternate, and while airborne, just telling ATC you wish to divert to your alternate (which was your intended destination all along)?

I don’t see any reason why this would not be allowed, although it might not be a good idea if the weather is marginal at both airports.

I never even considered this loophole while flying 703/704 around Northern Ontario... the idea just came to me yesterday when it was 1/2 mile 200’ in London, but clear and a million in St. Thomas only 20 miles away.

No, the phantom thing is perfectly legit. I forgot the correct terminology. It's similar to what you describe above but you still have proper alternates.

Basically you want to fly from A to C, with alternate D. Airlines need 10% contingency fuel (or at least in the area of the school I was taking lessons). You might not have enought fuel on paper to carry this contingency fuel. You could however file A - B with another alternate F. And then once you approach B you notice "hey, I didn't have to touch my contingency fuel, and i now have enough fuel to go B- C with alternate D. no point in landing, I will keep flying".
I can imagine that in those scenarios, updated weather might be more important as you are skipping your 'planned' destination B.

[cdnavater]

Was that on every flight, or only on longer ones where you don't have enough fuel to legally make it to your destination with 10% contingency so you have a 'phantom' destination in the middle where you're never intending to go anyway?

No we never had a "phantom destination." Everything was legit and we'd bump passengers and/or cargo if the numbers didn't work.

Unless you're referencing this idea which I actually asked on here about almost 5 years ago:

Here’s a thought experiment I’m trying to figure out.

You’re flying IFR and your intended destination is London, ON (CYXU). It has a precision approach (ILS). The only alternate within your fuel range is St. Thomas (CYQS) which is 20 NM away. It only has non-precision approaches and no weather reporting.


The weather is CAVOK in London, but the weather is below alternate minima for St. Thomas at your expected time of arrival, so you legally can’t complete the flight as you have no legal alternate.

Is there any legality with filing St. Thomas as your destination on paper and London as your alternate, and while airborne, just telling ATC you wish to divert to your alternate (which was your intended destination all along)?

I don’t see any reason why this would not be allowed, although it might not be a good idea if the weather is marginal at both airports.

I never even considered this loophole while flying 703/704 around Northern Ontario... the idea just came to me yesterday when it was 1/2 mile 200’ in London, but clear and a million in St. Thomas only 20 miles away.

Had a C.P suggest that in my early career, file the destination as my alternate divert to it, said no thanks!
As for my current 705, we have 3 options for alternates, always have a legal alternate regardless and I would have to look to see if dispatch is automatically checking halfway to destination but I have had them designate a new alternate while enroute, likely is something they are required to do but not sure if that is company policy or our type of co authority dispatch requirement.
The alternates are, legal alt, legal via a commercial alt, alt 1 and alt 2 with fuel for either but you have to choose and go to it not via. VIA you would go the commercial and if you don’t get in, go to the legal one.