Narrative:

During flight planning; it was discovered the ILS runway 08 at bgtl was NOTAM'd out-of-service. After some discussion amongst the crew and review of the 10-7 pages for bgtl; we had some concern that bgtl might not be a legal ETOPS alternate. During the captain's call to dispatch; bgtl's legality was raised. Additionally; the dispatcher was asked about a sentence in paragraph 1 of the arrival section of the bgtl 10-7 page that stated; 'do not rely on LNAV for course guidance to the runway' and how this may affect our ability to fly the VOR approach. The dispatcher changed our ETOPS alternate to cyfb and said she would get back to us on the question about the 10-7 page note.once our aircraft preflight was completed; the captain and I did some more research into whether or not we could fly another approach other than the ILS at bgtl. We concluded since there are no line selectable approaches; the RNAV GPS approach and a VOR approach (using LNAV) could not be flown. We also concluded that since the VOR bearing information displayed on the 777 is referenced to magnetic north; a raw data VOR approach using heading or trk mode could not be legally flown. This is alluded to in the missed approach guidance on the bgtl 10-7 page; arrivals paragraph 2. As a result; this left no available approach at bgtl for the 777 and therefore it was not a legal ETOPS alternate. About 15 minutes before departure; the dispatcher got back to us stating that she had checked on our LNAV question and the conclusion was that the LNAV note applied to the ILS only. She said she had confirmed this with [flight operations] and therefore bgtl was a good ETOPS alternate. She offered to change the alternate back to bgtl; which we declined due to the proximity to departure time and our previous internal discussions about the VOR approach suitability. After we got to cruise we provided additional information to the dispatcher regarding our conclusions and she acknowledged that in fact bgtl was not legal. Ultimately; we had a legal release; but I have concerns as to how many 777 ETOPS flights have been released with bgtl as an ETOPS alternate since the ILS outage. I also have concerns that even after questioning the legality of bgtl as an ETOPS alternate; dispatch and; in particular; [flight operations] got it wrong. I can understand an individual dispatcher not being fully up to speed on the technical nuisances of the 777; but in my opinion; [flight operations]; (a pilot) and the final backstop; should have been a little more diligent.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B777 First Officer reported that an ETOPS flight was assigned an unsuitable alternate.

Narrative: During flight planning; it was discovered the ILS runway 08 at BGTL was NOTAM'd out-of-service. After some discussion amongst the crew and review of the 10-7 pages for BGTL; we had some concern that BGTL might not be a legal ETOPS alternate. During the Captain's call to Dispatch; BGTL's legality was raised. Additionally; the Dispatcher was asked about a sentence in paragraph 1 of the Arrival section of the BGTL 10-7 page that stated; 'Do not rely on LNAV for course guidance to the runway' and how this may affect our ability to fly the VOR approach. The Dispatcher changed our ETOPS alternate to CYFB and said she would get back to us on the question about the 10-7 page note.Once our aircraft preflight was completed; the Captain and I did some more research into whether or not we could fly another approach other than the ILS at BGTL. We concluded since there are no line selectable approaches; the RNAV GPS approach and a VOR approach (using LNAV) could not be flown. We also concluded that since the VOR bearing information displayed on the 777 is referenced to magnetic north; a raw data VOR approach using HDG or TRK mode could not be legally flown. This is alluded to in the missed approach guidance on the BGTL 10-7 page; Arrivals paragraph 2. As a result; this left no available approach at BGTL for the 777 and therefore it was not a legal ETOPS alternate. About 15 minutes before departure; the Dispatcher got back to us stating that she had checked on our LNAV question and the conclusion was that the LNAV note applied to the ILS only. She said she had confirmed this with [Flight Operations] and therefore BGTL was a good ETOPS alternate. She offered to change the alternate back to BGTL; which we declined due to the proximity to departure time and our previous internal discussions about the VOR approach suitability. After we got to cruise we provided additional information to the Dispatcher regarding our conclusions and she acknowledged that in fact BGTL was not legal. Ultimately; we had a legal release; but I have concerns as to how many 777 ETOPS flights have been released with BGTL as an ETOPS alternate since the ILS outage. I also have concerns that even after questioning the legality of BGTL as an ETOPS alternate; Dispatch and; in particular; [Flight Operations] got it wrong. I can understand an individual dispatcher not being fully up to speed on the technical nuisances of the 777; but in my opinion; [Flight Operations]; (a pilot) and the final backstop; should have been a little more diligent.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.