Appendix 5 to AMC 20-6B - ETOPS en-route alternate aerodromes

• ED Decision 2021/006/R found in: AMC-20 Amdt 22 - Airworthiness of Products, Parts and Appliances (May 2021)

Appendix 5 to AMC 20-6B – ETOPS en-route alternate aerodromes ED Decision 2021/006/R 1. SELECTION OF EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROMES For an aerodrome to be nominated as an ETOPS en-route alternate for the purpose of this AMC, it should be anticipated that at the expected times of possible use it is an adequate ETOPS aerodrome that meets the weather and field conditions defined in the paragraph below titled ‘Dispatch minima – en-route alternate aerodromes’ or the applicable operational requirements. To list an aerodrome as an ETOPS en-route alternate, the following criteria should be met: a. The landing distances required as specified in the AFM for the altitude of the aerodrome, for the runway expected to be used, taking into account wind conditions, runway surface conditions, and aeroplane handling characteristics, permit the aeroplane to be stopped within the landing distance available as declared by the aerodrome authorities and computed in accordance with the applicable operational requirements. b. The aerodrome services and facilities are adequate to permit an instrument approach procedure to the runway expected to be used while complying with the applicable aerodrome operating minima. c. The latest available forecast weather conditions for a period commencing at the earliest potential time of landing and ending 1 hour after the latest nominated time of use of that aerodrome, equals or exceeds the authorised weather minima for en-route alternate aerodromes as provided for by the increments listed in Table 1 of this Appendix. In addition, for the same period, the forecast crosswind component plus any gusts should be within operating limits and within the operator’s maximum crosswind limitations taking into account the runway condition (dry, wet or contaminated) plus any reduced visibility limits. d. In addition, the operator’s programme should provide flight crews with information on adequate aerodromes appropriate to the route to be flown which are not forecast to meet en-route alternate weather minima. Aerodrome facility information and other appropriate planning data concerning these aerodromes should be provided to flight crews for use when executing a diversion. 2. DISPATCH MINIMA – EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROMES An aerodrome may be nominated as an ETOPS en-route alternate for flight planning and release purposes if the available forecast weather conditions for a period commencing at the earliest potential time of landing and ending 1 hour after the latest nominated time of use of that aerodrome, equal or exceed the criteria required by Table 1 below. Table 1. Planning Minima <table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="569"><tr><td valign="top" width="190"><p><b>Approach Facility</b></p></td><td valign="top" width="190"><p><b>Ceiling</b></p></td><td valign="top" width="190"><p><b>Visibility</b></p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="190"><p>Precision approach</p></td><td valign="top" width="190"><p>Authorised DH/DA plus an increment of 200 ft</p></td><td valign="top" width="190"><p>Authorised visibility plus an increment of 800 metres</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="190"><p>Non-precision approach or circling approach</p></td><td valign="top" width="190"><p>Authorised MDH/MDA plus an increment of 400 ft</p></td><td valign="top" width="190"><p>Authorised visibility plus an increment of 1 500 metres</p></td></tr></table> The above criteria for precision approaches are only to be applied to Category 1 approaches. When determining the usability of an instrument approach (IAP), forecast wind plus any gusts should be within operating limits, and within the operator’s maximum crosswind limitations taking into account the runway condition (dry, wet or contaminated) plus any reduced visibility limits. Conditional forecast elements need not be considered, except that a PROB 40 or TEMPO condition below the lowest applicable operating minima should be taken into account. When dispatching under the provisions of the MEL, those MEL limitations affecting instrument approach minima should be considered in determining ETOPS alternate minima. 3. EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROME PLANNING MINIMA – ADVANCED LANDING SYSTEMS The increments required by Table 1 are normally not applicable to Category II or III minima unless specifically approved by the authority. Approval will be based on the following criteria: a. Aircraft is capable of engine-inoperative Cat II/III landing; and b. Operator is approved for normal Cat II/III operations. The competent authority may require additional data (such as safety assessment or in-service records) to support such an application. For example, it should be shown that the specific aeroplane type can maintain the capability to safely conduct and complete the Category II/III approach and landing, in accordance with EASA CS-AWO, having encountered failure conditions in the airframe and/or propulsion systems associated with an inoperative engine that would result in the need for a diversion to the en-route alternate aerodrome. Systems to support one-engine inoperative Category II or III capability should be serviceable if required to take advantage of Category II or III landing minima at the planning stage. [Amdt 20/7] [Amdt 20/21] Appendix 5 to AMC 20-6B – ETOPS en-route alternate aerodromes ED Decision 2021/006/R 1.         SELECTION OF EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROMES For an aerodrome to be nominated as an ETOPS en-route alternate for the purpose of this AMC, it should be anticipated that at the expected times of possible use it is an adequate ETOPS aerodrome that meets the weather and field conditions defined in the paragraph below titled ‘Dispatch minima – en-route alternate aerodromes’ or the applicable operational requirements. To list an aerodrome as an ETOPS en-route alternate, the following criteria should be met: a.         The landing distances required as specified in the AFM for the altitude of the aerodrome, for the runway expected to be used, taking into account wind conditions, runway surface conditions, and aeroplane handling characteristics, permit the aeroplane to be stopped within the landing distance available as declared by the aerodrome authorities and computed in accordance with the applicable operational requirements. b.         The aerodrome services and facilities are adequate to permit an instrument approach procedure to the runway expected to be used while complying with the applicable aerodrome operating minima. c.         The latest available forecast weather conditions for a period commencing at the earliest potential time of landing and ending 1 hour after the latest nominated time of use of that aerodrome, equals or exceeds the authorised weather minima for en-route alternate aerodromes as provided for by the increments listed in Table 1 of this Appendix. In addition, for the same period, the forecast crosswind component plus any gusts should be within operating limits and within the operator’s maximum crosswind limitations taking into account the runway condition (dry, wet or contaminated) plus any reduced visibility limits. d.         In addition, the operator’s programme should provide flight crews with information on adequate aerodromes appropriate to the route to be flown which are not forecast to meet en-route alternate weather minima. Aerodrome facility information and other appropriate planning data concerning these aerodromes should be provided to flight crews for use when executing a diversion. 2.         DISPATCH MINIMA – EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROMES An aerodrome may be nominated as an ETOPS en-route alternate for flight planning and release purposes if the available forecast weather conditions for a period commencing at the earliest potential time of landing and ending 1 hour after the latest nominated time of use of that aerodrome, equal or exceed the criteria required by Table 1 below. Table 1. Planning Minima <table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="569"> <tr> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p><b>Approach Facility</b></p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p><b>Ceiling</b></p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p><b>Visibility</b></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Precision approach</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Authorised DH/DA plus an increment of 200 ft</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Authorised visibility plus an increment of 800 metres</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Non-precision approach or circling approach</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Authorised MDH/MDA plus an increment of 400 ft</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Authorised visibility plus an increment of 1 500 metres</p> </td> </tr> </table> The above criteria for precision approaches are only to be applied to Category 1 approaches. When determining the usability of an instrument approach (IAP), forecast wind plus any gusts should be within operating limits, and within the operator’s maximum crosswind limitations taking into account the runway condition (dry, wet or contaminated) plus any reduced visibility limits. Conditional forecast elements need not be considered, except that a PROB 40 or TEMPO condition below the lowest applicable operating minima should be taken into account. When dispatching under the provisions of the MEL, those MEL limitations affecting instrument approach minima should be considered in determining ETOPS alternate minima. 3.         EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROME PLANNING MINIMA – ADVANCED LANDING SYSTEMS The increments required by Table 1 are normally not applicable to Category II or III minima unless specifically approved by the authority. Approval will be based on the following criteria: a.         Aircraft is capable of engine-inoperative Cat II/III landing; and b.         Operator is approved for normal Cat II/III operations. The competent authority may require additional data (such as safety assessment or in-service records) to support such an application. For example, it should be shown that the specific aeroplane type can maintain the capability to safely conduct and complete the Category II/III approach and landing, in accordance with EASA CS-AWO, having encountered failure conditions in the airframe and/or propulsion systems associated with an inoperative engine that would result in the need for a diversion to the en-route alternate aerodrome. Systems to support one-engine inoperative Category II or III capability should be serviceable if required to take advantage of Category II or III landing minima at the planning stage. [Amdt 20/7] [Amdt 20/21] Appendix 5 to AMC 20-6B – ETOPS en-route alternate aerodromes ED Decision 2021/006/R 1.         SELECTION OF EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROMES For an aerodrome to be nominated as an ETOPS en-route alternate for the purpose of this AMC, it should be anticipated that at the expected times of possible use it is an adequate ETOPS aerodrome that meets the weather and field conditions defined in the paragraph below titled ‘Dispatch minima – en-route alternate aerodromes’ or the applicable operational requirements. To list an aerodrome as an ETOPS en-route alternate, the following criteria should be met: a.         The landing distances required as specified in the AFM for the altitude of the aerodrome, for the runway expected to be used, taking into account wind conditions, runway surface conditions, and aeroplane handling characteristics, permit the aeroplane to be stopped within the landing distance available as declared by the aerodrome authorities and computed in accordance with the applicable operational requirements. b.         The aerodrome services and facilities are adequate to permit an instrument approach procedure to the runway expected to be used while complying with the applicable aerodrome operating minima. c.         The latest available forecast weather conditions for a period commencing at the earliest potential time of landing and ending 1 hour after the latest nominated time of use of that aerodrome, equals or exceeds the authorised weather minima for en-route alternate aerodromes as provided for by the increments listed in Table 1 of this Appendix. In addition, for the same period, the forecast crosswind component plus any gusts should be within operating limits and within the operator’s maximum crosswind limitations taking into account the runway condition (dry, wet or contaminated) plus any reduced visibility limits. d.         In addition, the operator’s programme should provide flight crews with information on adequate aerodromes appropriate to the route to be flown which are not forecast to meet en-route alternate weather minima. Aerodrome facility information and other appropriate planning data concerning these aerodromes should be provided to flight crews for use when executing a diversion. 2.         DISPATCH MINIMA – EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROMES An aerodrome may be nominated as an ETOPS en-route alternate for flight planning and release purposes if the available forecast weather conditions for a period commencing at the earliest potential time of landing and ending 1 hour after the latest nominated time of use of that aerodrome, equal or exceed the criteria required by Table 1 below. Table 1. Planning Minima <table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="569"> <tr> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p><b>Approach Facility</b></p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p><b>Ceiling</b></p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p><b>Visibility</b></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Precision approach</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Authorised DH/DA plus an increment of 200 ft</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Authorised visibility plus an increment of 800 metres</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Non-precision approach or circling approach</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Authorised MDH/MDA plus an increment of 400 ft</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <p>Authorised visibility plus an increment of 1 500 metres</p> </td> </tr> </table> The above criteria for precision approaches are only to be applied to Category 1 approaches. When determining the usability of an instrument approach (IAP), forecast wind plus any gusts should be within operating limits, and within the operator’s maximum crosswind limitations taking into account the runway condition (dry, wet or contaminated) plus any reduced visibility limits. Conditional forecast elements need not be considered, except that a PROB 40 or TEMPO condition below the lowest applicable operating minima should be taken into account. When dispatching under the provisions of the MEL, those MEL limitations affecting instrument approach minima should be considered in determining ETOPS alternate minima. 3.         EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROME PLANNING MINIMA – ADVANCED LANDING SYSTEMS The increments required by Table 1 are normally not applicable to Category II or III minima unless specifically approved by the authority. Approval will be based on the following criteria: a.         Aircraft is capable of engine-inoperative Cat II/III landing; and b.         Operator is approved for normal Cat II/III operations. The competent authority may require additional data (such as safety assessment or in-service records) to support such an application. For example, it should be shown that the specific aeroplane type can maintain the capability to safely conduct and complete the Category II/III approach and landing, in accordance with EASA CS-AWO, having encountered failure conditions in the airframe and/or propulsion systems associated with an inoperative engine that would result in the need for a diversion to the en-route alternate aerodrome. Systems to support one-engine inoperative Category II or III capability should be serviceable if required to take advantage of Category II or III landing minima at the planning stage. [Amdt 20/7] [Amdt 20/21]