Capt. Claude Godel OST 06-3

1. Post Fuel Symposium: NPA-OPS 61 - Possibility to use one destination alternate and one en-route alternate versus two destination alternatesin JAR-OPS 1.295 (d)Selection of aerodromes Capt. Claude Godel OST 06-3

2. The proposed amendment • This issue was raised by DGAC France. • The NPA allows use of one en-route alternate plus one destination alternate versus two destination alternates in the circumstances in JAR OPS 1.295 (d). • The amended text reads: • (d) An operator must select two destination alternatesor one destination alternate aerodrome and one en-route alternate aerodrome (located according to Appendix 2 to JAR OPS 1.255 and to which destination alternate planning minima apply)when: • (1) The appropriate weather reports or forecasts for the destination, or any combination thereof, indicate that during a period commencing 1 hour before and ending 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the weather conditions will be below the applicable planning minima; or • (2) No meteorological information is available.

3. Purpose and Intended Effect • The NPA would increase operational flexibility for operators by giving them a chance to carry less diversion fuel (and therefore more load…) while preserving the same level of safety. Indeed, like in the existing two alternates rule, the Commander still keeps two possibilities to land until he reaches a point where he can determine the exact situation at Destination. • Principle: • Among the two alternates normally necessary, consider the one which needs the lesser fuel amount. • Consider an ERA situated in the 3%ERA circle and determine the last possible point of diversion to that ERA so as to land with final-reserve fuel remaining. • In place of making your decision over destination between two destination alternates, decide a little bit earlier, at the point of no return to the ERA, between the destination alternate and the ERA.

4. In flight management • When approaching the point of no return, if the conditions at Destination are known and permit the approach, the Commander may continue towards the Destination (keeping the possibility to divert to the Destination Alternate), otherwise he must divert, from the point of no return, straight towards either the Destination Alternate or the ERA. (New rule in JAR-OPS 1.375 §2,(iv),c In-Flight Fuel Management) • Please note: • that the point of no return is by definition close enough to the Destination to get reliable information. • If the Commander decides to divert to the Dest Alternate, he will be committed in the same way as if he would have diverted over Destination in the case of two alternates but he will arrive at the alternate with more fuel than only Final Reserve.

5. Present JAR OPS Proposition Decision Point 3%ERA ALT. 1 DEST DEST ALT. 1 ALT. 2 Practical example Alternate Fuel = DEST  ALT 2 Alternate Fuel = DEST  ALT 1

6. Conclusion • Already discussed at OST a couple of years ago and not rejected, but frozen… • Already allowed by French OPS1 and used in some occasion. • Difference between Alternate fuel (DESTALT2 versus DESTALT1) can represent several tons (of payload) • It is only an economical risk: you allow for less time to get an improvement in weather (or strike). • May need some section 2 material to explain calculation of the Point of no return to the 3%ERA. • OPSG is in favour of introducing this possibility into JAR OPS.