bookworm wrote:
The requirements in 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 are for an operational flight plan.
Technically yes – BUT it is in the note (“Anm”) that it is explicitly specified that if a flight plan (also) is filed, and you want SAR, then, the (filed) flight plan shall be complete according to BSL F 1.3. which specifically means it has to include an alternate. In the next sentence it say that this requirements also is true for VFR flights.
This note is more of a reminder of what is written in BSL F 1.3 : The requirement for a complete flight plan also for VFR. Today there are no more BSL F 1.3. SERA has taken over. But SERA also has this requirement. Nothing has changed. The requirement is there, but in SERA instead of BSL F 1.3. Technically what is “wrong” here is that Part NCO lack this “reminder” (+ they should have changed the reference to refer to SERA and not some obsolete BSL).
bookworm wrote:
I find it extraordinary that Norway mandates an OFP for non-commercial flights with so much detail that is, in the modern world, extraneous.
There you go, theory vs reality. I prefer to stick with reality whenever I can. The terrain and weather in Norway has not changed. What has changed is the introduction of moving maps and GPS. If however, you are to navigate according to paper map and compass, than this is the minimum (A requirement by EASA and all national CAAs). It is also what all schools teach (I teach as well for microlights). There is no way in hell you will be able to navigate with a low cloud layer, poor visibility and the terrain we have, without a good operational plan. When the weather is nice, no problem, you follow roads, fjords, rivers, mountains, child’s play. Also if you locally known in the area, no real problem.
A moving map does the same thing. It replaces that manual OP. As the regulation say, this is an example of an operational flight plan. LT encourage the use of GPS and moving maps, also the use of IFR equipment if this is installed (VOR, ADF, IFR GPS, DME), but they say keep compass and paper map as backup, or at least a backup device.
LeSving wrote:
But SERA also has this requirement.
SERA does not have that requirement. SERA says that the competent authority may make that requirement. Norway has done so. No other country has, to the best if my knowledge.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It is an issue because the Norwegian ARO imposes a restriction on flight plans (also for international flights originating outside which is not according to EASA rules andnot documented in the AIP either.
I think you missed my point. IMHO it’s a good habit to include an alternate on every FPL. If one always does that then national differences, rational/legal or not, don’t even come into play and one is always on the safe side without having to worry about whether it is required or not.
chflyer wrote:
I think you missed my point. IMHO it’s a good habit to include an alternate on every FPL.
That’s a different but interesting discussion. What is the benefit of including an alternate in the flight plan? I can really only think of two:
If you need to divert, you are under no obligation to divert to the filed alternate, you can go anywhere you choose.
Correct, a bit off subject, since that really enters the discussion of why FPL exists in the first place and the benefit (& to whom) of every box in the FPL. Perhaps a nice philosophical discussion, but the FPL is a tool of the aviators trade and the format, with occasional updates, has been in place for ages.
My original point was just that I don’t see why ticking the ALT box is a big deal if one is in the habit of doing it for every FPL. If for nothing else, the pilot then needs to at least consider that he/she might not end up going to the intended destination and reflect on what the “alternative” scenarios might be. But that is also a bit off subject since this thread is essentially a discussion about the legal basis of Norway’s requirement for it.
chflyer wrote:
If for nothing else, the pilot then needs to at least consider that he/she might not end up going to the intended destination and reflect on what the “alternative” scenarios might be.
Sure, but that is not very relevant for the filed alternate as the choice of diversion airfield depends on when and why you decide to divert. The filed alternate is really intended for IFR flights that fail to make a successful landing at their destinations. It is not intended for departure or enroute alternates. (If you need to file such alternates, they should be put in item 18 of the flight plan as TALT or RALT.)
As far as I can recall, during my 900 hours of flying, of which perhaps 75% is cross-country and about 50% IFR, I have diverted three times. Of these three only one was to an airport that I could reasonable have planned or filed as destination alternate. Of the other two, one was to an enroute alternate and one to a destination alternate different from my filed alternate as it turned out to be more suitable.
Airborne_Again wrote:
SERA says that the competent authority may make that requirement
Well? And so it is – according to – - – SERA (and nothing else) You cleared this up yourself. Lots of other details are also different. We have a separate thread, and database about this. I shall find it.
An alternate is also the default ICAO requirement. I’m almost 100% sure that if an alternate is not required, then this deviation must be mentioned in the AIP (not the other way around).
Is it a big deal? certainly not from a pilot’s point of view. An alternate is easy to put in there. You should be aware though, this IS a big deal for the entire SAR system. Doing “funny stuff” in the FP, and you stand a chance of being charged for the entire eventual search operation.
Airborne_Again wrote:
What is the benefit of including an alternate in the flight plan?
You are missing the point. For VFR there are no real benefits at all (for the pilot) to file a flight plan in Norway. Not what I can think of, except one thing – SAR. Operationally you can fly wherever you want, in and out of controlled airspace, no problems whatsoever, just keep in touch with ATC/Information. Lots of opinions about this. Some will always file a FP, even for short local hops. Others will never file, except when they have to by law. An alternate or not, makes no difference here. We have moving maps GPS do do all navigation for us.
But, when filing a FP, you tell SAR about your flight. You send a massage saying we are 4 people. We are going to fly from A to B, and if B turns out to be unavailable for whatever reason, we will go to C. Why do they need to know about the “C” ? Because it will make things easier for them IF something happens. Making is as easy and predictable as possible for SAR is in everyone’s interest. ATC couldn’t care less, it’s all about SAR. I’m not sure this makes any sense to most people here? You have to remember that “B” could be out of radio range, it could be an ice field on a lake and so on, far away from people.
LeSving wrote:
An alternate is also the default ICAO requirement.
It is not. If you think it is, please quote chapter and verse. Otherwise I have nothing more to say in this discussion.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It is not
Well. ICAO is not law. What it has to say about this is is in appendix 2 of doc 4444 Air Traffic Management. It’s a detailed explanation of filling out a complete FP. Nowhere does it mention you can simply omit alternates from a VFR FP.
