No Alternate IFR issue

[pelmet]

Not really an incident but an interesting event that faced this crew from a legal point of view.

"An Embraer EMB-190, C-FNAW, operated by Air Canada as flight ACA259, was on a no alternate
IFR flight plan from Toronto (CYYZ), ON, to Winnipeg (CYWG), MB. After departure, the
dispatcher and flight crew determined that Runway 18/36 at CYWG was closed by NOTAM, and
the flight plan needed to be revised with a designated alternate. Grand Forks (KGFK), North
Dakota, was designated as the alternate and the flight crew requested priority for landing at CYWG
to accommodate the changes to the fuel plan. The flight arrived at CYWG with sufficient fuel to
comply with IFR alternate requirements."

[Krimson]

Not really interesting either.

[Rockie]

Alternate requirements are for planning purposes only. As long as the legal requirements were met before takeoff the flight was legal even if conditions changed at destination and there was not enough fuel for an alternate. There is also no legal requirement to land with enough gas to get to your alternate provided you had the legally required fuel at takeoff.

There was no legal issue with this flight at all.

[CpnCrunch]

It sounds from the CADOR as if they forgot to check the NOTAMs before departure, so they weren't actually legal to depart.

[Liquid Charlie]

It sounds from the CADOR as if they forgot to check the NOTAMs before departure, so they weren't actually legal to depart.

not totally maybe ultimately but it is a co-authority dispatch system so maybe the ball was dropped in publication or even maybe time of issue -- I'm sure it will be addressed under their SMS system -- legal -- smeegal -- not even relevant

Personally I have been caught more than once with no alternate IFR and unforecasted wx and winds -- now this is one area where granny -- oops -- sorry -- where route factor fuel is your friend --

[photofly]

Having departed illegally, was the situation remedied by filing an alternate in flight? As someone pointed out, it's a departure requirement, not an inflight requirement.

[Siddley Hawker]

Why didn't they change the destination to Thunder Bay with Winnipeg as alternate, then overfly the destination and proceed to the alternate?

[Rockie]

Why didn't they change the destination to Thunder Bay with Winnipeg as alternate, then overfly the destination and proceed to the alternate?

I know you're saying that in jest, but refile flight plans are very common. They are used to save gas on long range flights by filing to a destination short of where they want to go with the legal gas to get there, then refile later in the flight using the enroute contingency fuel (which could be considerable) as burn to the new (and real) destination. It's completely legal with the proper dispatch and flight watch organization, and allows the flight to use contingency fuel as burn to the intended destination instead of just carrying it at considerable cost.

Doing what you suggest (departing with insufficient legal fuel) to get to your intended destination is not only legal in these cases, but practical and safe.

[Siddley Hawker]

Maybe half in jest. I've done that trick in the days before no alt IFR.

[PositiveRate27]

The CADOR was likely generated due to them requesting priority handling into CYWG. Once they discovered YWG no longer met the No Alt requiments it was prudent to come up with a different plan incase the only usable in YWG became unusable. They weren't legally required to, but being proactive and re-filing with a suitable alternate and having a back up plan seems better than trudging along until you're out of options.

[pelmet]

It's completely legal with the proper dispatch and flight watch organization, and allows the flight to use contingency fuel as burn to the intended destination instead of just carrying it at considerable cost.

Doing what you suggest (departing with insufficient legal fuel) to get to your intended destination is not only legal in these cases, but practical and safe.

Not my idea of a safe operation. One should not assume that legal means safe.

[Rockie]

It's done all the time and completely safe. When you land you have the same fuel left in tanks as you would have on a shorter flight, the only difference is you have used the large amount of contingency gas you would have landed with as well for enroute burn. What's the difference landing with 5.0 tonnes of gas on a flight from Montreal to Toronto, and landing with the same amount of gas on a flight from Frankfurt?

But as I said you need the right kind of dispatch and flight watch.

[pelmet]

It's done all the time and completely safe. When you land you have the same fuel left in tanks as you would have on a shorter flight, the only difference is you have used the large amount of contingency gas you would have landed with as well for enroute burn. What's the difference landing with 5.0 tonnes of gas on a flight from Montreal to Toronto, and landing with the same amount of gas on a flight from Frankfurt?

But as I said you need the right kind of dispatch and flight watch.

What difference does it make if the flight is from Frankfurt or Montreal(assuming the same aircraft here).The problem is that you seem to feel that 5.0 tons is reasonable. But is it? If you are coming from Frankfurt, you are probably in a 777. How much does that burn an hour? 8 tons perhaps on average. I don't know as I have not flown one(maybe soon if I get lucky) but that sounds about right. So the forecast at destination is good and guess what....a bit longer taxi than normal and some deviations enroute. How many times have we seen the weather fog in at night or unforecast snow squalls in the winter. Then what if Winnipeg(as was the original case for the thread) which is down to one runway might have only a non-precision approach as the wind has kicked up in the squall to over 20 knots in the wrong direction.

How much fuel does the 777 burn for a go-around and return. What if the gear does not come down and needs a manual extension. I know, it is just a push button on newer aircraft but some of the older ones need to be cranked down when using their no alternate IFR fuel. This no-alternate IFR basic theory does not consider unforecasted conditions and does not consider the chance of a significant amount of time being necessary to extend gear or flaps in an alternate manner when we were going to originally land with about 40 minutes of fuel to empty tanks. How much time do you really have to deal with your situation.

Of course if your no-alternate is always Toronto or Montreal in an autoland capable aircraft, you may be fortunate to have nearby airports and multiple CAT III approaches and not be concerned about the other guys using these rules at less capable airports.

[A346Dude]

It's done all the time and completely safe. When you land you have the same fuel left in tanks as you would have on a shorter flight, the only difference is you have used the large amount of contingency gas you would have landed with as well for enroute burn. What's the difference landing with 5.0 tonnes of gas on a flight from Montreal to Toronto, and landing with the same amount of gas on a flight from Frankfurt?

But as I said you need the right kind of dispatch and flight watch.

What difference does it make if the flight is from Frankfurt or Montreal(assuming the same aircraft here).The problem is that you seem to feel that 5.0 tons is reasonable. But is it? If you are coming from Frankfurt, you are probably in a 777. How much does that burn an hour? 8 tons perhaps on average. I don't know as I have not flown one(maybe soon if I get lucky) but that sounds about right. So the forecast at destination is good and guess what....a bit longer taxi than normal and some deviations enroute. How many times have we seen the weather fog in at night or unforecast snow squalls in the winter. Then what if Winnipeg(as was the original case for the thread) which is down to one runway might have only a non-precision approach as the wind has kicked up in the squall to over 20 knots in the wrong direction.

How much fuel does the 777 burn for a go-around and return. What if the gear does not come down and needs a manual extension. I know, it is just a push button on newer aircraft but some of the older ones need to be cranked down when using their no alternate IFR fuel. This no-alternate IFR basic theory does not consider unforecasted conditions and does not consider the chance of a significant amount of time being necessary to extend gear or flaps in an alternate manner when we were going to originally land with about 40 minutes of fuel to empty tanks. How much time do you really have to deal with your situation.

Of course if your no-alternate is always Toronto or Montreal in an autoland capable aircraft, you may be fortunate to have nearby airports and multiple CAT III approaches and not be concerned about the other guys using these rules at less capable airports.

Not really sure what you're getting at. The whole idea of a re-file is to convert enroute reserve, which rarely gets used, and in some cases alternate fuel, into trip fuel. If for some reason you use up most or all of the enroute reserve you will end up short of fuel to the scheduled destination and have to land short, at a pre-planned airport and (generally) holding an alternate. If all goes well however, as it normally does, you land at the scheduled destination with roughly the same fuel remaining as if you had been on a short flight, but your trip burn was lower because you loaded less fuel at departure.

Don't confuse a re-file with no alternate IFR. They can be used in conjunction with each other but they are not the same thing.

[pelmet]

It's done all the time and completely safe. When you land you have the same fuel left in tanks as you would have on a shorter flight, the only difference is you have used the large amount of contingency gas you would have landed with as well for enroute burn. What's the difference landing with 5.0 tonnes of gas on a flight from Montreal to Toronto, and landing with the same amount of gas on a flight from Frankfurt?

But as I said you need the right kind of dispatch and flight watch.

What difference does it make if the flight is from Frankfurt or Montreal(assuming the same aircraft here).The problem is that you seem to feel that 5.0 tons is reasonable. But is it? If you are coming from Frankfurt, you are probably in a 777. How much does that burn an hour? 8 tons perhaps on average. I don't know as I have not flown one(maybe soon if I get lucky) but that sounds about right. So the forecast at destination is good and guess what....a bit longer taxi than normal and some deviations enroute. How many times have we seen the weather fog in at night or unforecast snow squalls in the winter. Then what if Winnipeg(as was the original case for the thread) which is down to one runway might have only a non-precision approach as the wind has kicked up in the squall to over 20 knots in the wrong direction.

How much fuel does the 777 burn for a go-around and return. What if the gear does not come down and needs a manual extension. I know, it is just a push button on newer aircraft but some of the older ones need to be cranked down when using their no alternate IFR fuel. This no-alternate IFR basic theory does not consider unforecasted conditions and does not consider the chance of a significant amount of time being necessary to extend gear or flaps in an alternate manner when we were going to originally land with about 40 minutes of fuel to empty tanks. How much time do you really have to deal with your situation.

Of course if your no-alternate is always Toronto or Montreal in an autoland capable aircraft, you may be fortunate to have nearby airports and multiple CAT III approaches and not be concerned about the other guys using these rules at less capable airports.

Not really sure what you're getting at. The whole idea of a re-file is to convert enroute reserve, which rarely gets used, and in some cases alternate fuel, into trip fuel. If for some reason you use up most or all of the enroute reserve you will end up short of fuel to the scheduled destination and have to land short, at a pre-planned airport and (generally) holding an alternate. If all goes well however, as it normally does, you land at the scheduled destination with roughly the same fuel remaining as if you had been on a short flight, but your trip burn was lower because you loaded less fuel at departure.

Don't confuse a re-file with no alternate IFR. They can be used in conjunction with each other but they are not the same thing.

Thanks,

I have not been involved with this re-file stuff. The subject initially for the thread was a no alternate IFR situation. I am not sure if re-file on a flight to YYZ as used in an example from YUL will leave you with the same landing fuel as the re-file from Frankfurt which was the other example used. But that was what was indicated with a 5 ton landing fuel for both flights.

If the re-file arrival fuel on arrival equals the no alternate IFR fuel for arrival, I fail to see the difference between the two flights from YUL and from the re-file point.

Hopefully you can clarify.

[A346Dude]

You wouldn't re-file a flight from YUL-YYZ. A re-file allows you to essentially drop enroute reserve and/or alternate fuel in cases when it would otherwise be required, such as a transatlantic flight from Europe. It does this by identifying a safe airport and alternate at which you can land if you burn more enroute than expected.

Without a re-file, a flight from FRA-YYZ would have a minimum planned landing fuel of say 9 tons because you need about 2.5 tons of enroute reserve and 1.5 tons of alternate fuel. With a re-file, you could get it down to 6.5 tons if you remove the enroute reserve, or 7.5 tons if you remove the alternate, or 5 tons if you remove them both. On a YUL-YYZ flight you don't need either, so you can dispatch with a planned landing fuel of 5 tons without a re-file.

[kevenv]

We see this quite often with traffic from Europe destined to the eastern seaboard when the upper winds are strong. They file KBGR and after they hit land fall they recalculate fuel and refile in the air changing from KBGR to desired destination.

[Rockie]

In addition the refile aircraft has the advantage of already being at altitude with not much farther to go to destination, so their actual fuel onboard is a much better starting point to refile from than when the flight was originally planned many hours before. That also means no ground delays, no route surprises, no wind surprises, known current weather for landing, known terminal delays etc.

Plus as was mentioned already, based on known conditions the flight may safely drop an alternate to further extend their holding time if necessary besides using the contingency as enroute burn they would otherwise have had to land with.

This procedure can be safely used to reduce fuel costs and/or extend the range of a maxed out aircraft to reach the intended destination instead of having to land short.

[pelmet]

If you feel minimum fuel is safe then perhaps it is in your own mind. It is when everything works out fine.

But be honest now. How many of us have said to the fuel man to feel free to add a couple of hundred extra to your very safe fuel load as per flight plan. Be honest now. That might indicate the real mindset you have in the background.

And ask yourself this. If the fuel were free to the company for a month as they had worked out a special deal to move to a new provider and fuel loading was at your discretion, how many of you would not take a few extra tons(big jets we are talking about) if it did not come close to affecting any other limits. You know you would, so the question is why would you do that when you felt it it was safe at minimum legal fuel.

After all, that is how things were done when gas was cheap.

[Rockie]

Pelmet

I don't know why you are taking me to task over this but let me respectfully point out a couple of things. You do not understand the system within which I work and so do not understand what constitutes minimum fuel under that system. You also have no idea what I personally would consider minimum fuel under any of the thousands of different circumstances that could be encountered. The situations I'm explaining are principals of a most generic nature that do not account for individual circumstances or preferences. These situations are safe in general principal - not in every case which has to be judged at the time. That's why we get paid the not so big bucks.

Do you understand now?

[trey kule]

After all, that is how things were done when gas was cheap.

I dont think so. I can recall contract jet fuel at .10 an imperial gallon and pump price for 80/87 at .50 an imperial gallon.

Refile is not about minimum fuel. It is about taking less fuel...there is a difference.
In the older days before the 16 hour endurance aircraft , it was, in fact necessary to do some routes.

i sense that there may be some misunderstanding of what exactly it is by the comments that it is minimum fuel.

For example, you can plan a route to fly to your destination, and then, if necessary.....back to your alternate, it takes a certain amount of fuel to meet the requirements, particularly if the alternate might actually be closer to your departure Point

On the other hand, if the alternate is closer to the departure airport, you csn use it as your planned destination, and your real destination as the alternate. You have saved the fuel from the backtrack without any compromise of safety whatsoever.

Think of it this way. If you wanted to fly from vancouver to toronto, with winnipeg as an alternate, you would need fuel to toronto, then back to winnipeg, plus reserves.

On the other hand you could file winnipeg with Toronto as the alternate, which means you would need fuel to winnipeg, then Toronto plus reserve.

You dont need to carry all that fuel to get back to winnipeg, and it is no more unsafe than if you were really going to winnipeg and using toronto as an alternate

When you get nearer your destination you are better able to confirm your actual fuel usage, more current weather, and land at your filed destination, or refile to your alternate.

Lastly, when you are flying internationally, the fuel requirements are sometimes quite a bit different that the IF requirements for tooling around in Canada, both from a regulatory point and from a company spec.

This whole talk to the fuel guy, granny gas, and cheap fuel prices have nothing to do with it.

Edit: i apoligize for any redundancy. Rockie posted while I was composing.

[pelmet]

Pelmet

I don't know why you are taking me to task over this but let me respectfully point out a couple of things. You do not understand the system within which I work and so do not understand what constitutes minimum fuel under that system. You also have no idea what I personally would consider minimum fuel under any of the thousands of different circumstances that could be encountered. The situations I'm explaining are principals of a most generic nature that do not account for individual circumstances or preferences. These situations are safe in general principal - not in every case which has to be judged at the time. That's why we get paid the not so big bucks.

Actually, it is not you I am taking to task. I think the regulating authorities have given in to groups representing airlines that have reduced our fuel when arriving at a diversion airport(along with all the other aircraft) with 30 minutes until empty tanks if you diverted with only your alternate fuel left.

I think I might work under the same system(in general principal) and personally, am uncomfortable with the general principal for the reasons I stated previously. And I think I know what the answers would be for most pilots to the questions I asked earlier. Planned fuel load may be safe but we'll take the extra fuel.

[Rockie]

Think of it this way, TC determines the minimum conditions that must be met to be legal, and "no alternate" flight plans are perfectly safe in many cases. TC specifies the minimum conditions that must be met to permit them but they are by no means the only conditions. It is up to the crew ultimately to determine whether they accept a no alternate flight plan, and if they do how much minimum fuel they are prepared to land with on any given flight.

Remember it is a fuel saving tool used at the crew's discretion, it is not and will never be a dictate to land with insufficient fuel.