New Alternate Minima

[flying monkey]

Anyone know why the new helo alternate mins are not showing up in the CAP? Is there some debate going on about this behind the scenes?

I know it's a very exciting topic...

 

[cyclic monkey]

Hi you must be my cousin !!!!! Isn't the aviation business a small world ????

Maybe we can get together sometime and share a few bananas, and pick nits out of each others hair. Until then, hang loose you ape !!

 

[Bladestrike]

No debate, there's an exemption to CAR 602.123. The Canadian's have adapted FAA CFR Sec 91.69 IFR for helo ops which only requires an alternate to be 200 feet above the lowest usaeble HAT and 1 mile vis, regardless if its precision or non-precision or the number of approaches.

I'm at home now but I'll see if I can find it later and I'll pass it along.

 

[Bladestrike]

Found it. Its in your AIP, Aeronautical Information Circular 5/03, issued April 17th, 2003.

 

[twitch]

:unsure: The question I've been wondering about is, There is no difinitive statement on the use of GFA's or Aerodrome Advisory forcasts other than the vague reference in condition "3", so do you go back to +1000/3 ? :unsure: :unsure:

twitch

 

[Bladestrike]

Yea, its not too clear, is it?

Because the wording in 3. matches the wording in RAC 3.14.1, I'd hazard a guess that the old standards apply if a TAF is unavailable, but I certainly wouldn't put any money on it.

Likewise, 1. regarding GPS only approaches, doesn't include the same wording as RAC 3.14.1 that if RAIM Check..etc.etc...allowing GPS only airports as alternates, so perhaps you can't apply the 200 feet but have to go with the old standard (for a non-precision approach) as well.

CTD, any comments?
:blink:

 

[flying monkey]

That was the debate I was thinking about - but didn't mention.

I'm curious about why the AIC was published on 17 April and two new CAP Gen's have been published since then, but no amendment to alternates.

I'm a curious monkey.

 

[deuce bigalow]

This got me thinkin. Heres my take on it. CAP GEN 18 criteria still apply as written. They want a TAF to allow these lower limits. Come to think of it I would want one too. It's a rare day you would want to fly IFR in a Helo using a GFA. We used to do it quite a bit up in the Arctic but we were operating BFR up there. (Beaufort Flight Rules) 🙄 🙄

 

[twitch]

I'd agree with you duce, I would want a TAF also. It's a just little strange that TC wouldn't make a difinitive statment on the requirements! :wacko: Oh man what was I thinking!!!! 🙄

twitch