rickair7777

Technically filing an alternate is regulatory always. The 123 rule is an exception to NOT file an alternate.

In 121 you're required to keep tabs on the alt wx while enroute, and file a new one if it's no longer suitable.

TiredSoul

In VMC conditions the requirements are to be stabilized by 500’.

HercDriver130

not at all companies.....

plus... becareful using the terminology "min fuel" in some foreign countries... India for example considers this call an emergency situation.

Bucknut

When referring to checking the weather at alternate that is true that you are required to check wx and change the alternate if the weather goes below mins. It is hard to do in a non-ACARS aircraft and it depends on whether you have a good dispatcher or not. I guess I was trying to say start looking at other airports in addition to your alternate if weather is marginal at your destination. In regards to the 123 rule you got me on that one, (semantics) but I think everyone got the gist of the conversation.

JohnBurke

You're not required to land with alternate fuel; you're required to have it on board before you start the trip.

There is no regulation which prevents you from burning into your reserves at your destination, nor that requires you to go to an alternate if you're burning alternate fuel.

That said, if your destination becomes unavailable, then you'd better have sufficient fuel to go elsewhere. I diverted twice last year when crashes closed the field where I was headed, and held once while a mishap was removed, before I could land. It happens.

You'd be hard pressed to explain to an employer, however, why you diverted from an open and available runway at your destination, on a VFR day, simply because you didn't understand how to operate the aircraft or the regulation.

Think about it from a different perspective; if you're diverting because you've allowed a substandard pilot to fly and go around, and you're into your reserves now, do you really want to burn the rest of the fuel going somewhere to let the substandard pilot do it again? If you're into reserves, perhaps you'd be best landing the aircraft and talking about the F/O with it on the ground.

That depends on the operator.

There's no part of that statement which is true, other than the fact that burning into IFR reserves is legal.

Landing below "emergency fuel" is legal, though unwise.

There is no requirement to always have "fuel required to divert to a dispatched alternate" in domestic operations, or international operations. If one is held and lands with some of the planned fuel burned, or if one has unforecast winds aloft, or if one has had other conditions which have resulted in a higher than anticipated fuel burn, there is not a legal requirement to land with full diversion fuel plus IFR reserves.

One needs to keep options open, but there are places where the options don't really exist. International island fuel reserves, for example, allow a two hour reserve when dispatched to an island location that lacks a suitable alternate; it's not illegal to end up landing with less fuel, and still nowhere else to go. It happens.

Yes, "minimum fuel" very much means something to air traffic control. Do you not understand why?

JamesNoBrakes

I'm going to piggyback here, in the scenario, it is said that it's VFR at DFW, so how would anyone justify it being safer to proceed to SAT just because you had to do a go-around?

Most importantly, you aren't going to get any Hard 8 if you go to SAT.

rickair7777

Very fine technicality... what if the DEST TAF still did not meet the 123 requirements? You're still technically "enroute", is it kosher to burn fuel and remove your option to divert to a legal ALT just because the METAR is VFR? No issue if you had plenty of gas of course.

Some of the coastal airports on the west coast can go from clear and a million to CAT-III in about five minutes.

JamesNoBrakes

You do what you have to do in the interest of safety, that's why you make the big bucks. I've seen the weather blow in faster than that, but the scenario presented didn't past the "smell test" of operating at the highest level of safety. There are situations where there one option would be clearly safer, such as the PIC taking a landing at the original destination under VFR when the SIC "blew it" on the first attempt, rather than burn more fuel to arrive at a further destination that has no higher chance of a successful approach and landing. There are also situations where there might be multiple "correct" outcomes, as long as the decisions were thought out and based on solid reasoning, when you start talking about the TAF and 123, that is probably most likely, because the correct decision will depend on more factors now, exact weather conditions and trends, alternate forecast and observation, etc. If you can argue what you did was based on safety and not for convenience or because you just don't know any better, you should have the all the reason in the world to stand behind your decision and standing up for something like that is just as important as blindly following the regulations day to day.

AboveMins

I'd go with option 3, while keeping an eye on fuel at my alternate staying above emergency fuel. Lots of variables to consider, but with the info given, that's what I'd do. YMMV.

Airbum

[QUOTE=JohnBurke;255434

There's no part of that statement which is true, other than the fact that burning into IFR reserves is legal.

Landing below "emergency fuel" is legal, though unwise.

There is no requirement to always have "fuel required to divert to a dispatched alternate" in domestic operations, or international operations. If one is held and lands with some of the planned fuel burned, or if one has unforecast winds aloft, or if one has had other conditions which have resulted in a higher than anticipated fuel burn, there is not a legal requirement to land with full diversion fuel plus IFR reserves.

One needs to keep options open, but there are places where the options don't really exist. International island fuel reserves, for example, allow a two hour reserve when dispatched to an island location that lacks a suitable alternate; it's not illegal to end up landing with less fuel, and still nowhere else to go. It happens.

Yes, "minimum fuel" very much means something to air traffic control. Do you not understand why?[/QUOTE]


I'll take that hit for a poor post.

Min fuel has a actual ICAO meaning: advisory in nature,

I mixed up FAA dispatch fuel requirements and my companies training on operations while airborne.

Yes I have used Island Reserves before and one can land below the two hours of fuel. It is a dispatch requirement like you stated.