What happens if I don't file an alternate?

[luvflyin]

You're referring to clearing other aircraft out of the way of the NORDO aircraft correct? Well, there's no standard procedure for that.

You can try and anticipate a pilot's actions because of 91.185 but that leaves a few what ifs. Like you said, the pilot could come back and try another approach, they might head off to a VMC field, they might land at their alternate or if their alternate doesn't look good, go to a different alternate.

Like Steven, never seen an aircraft that couldn't get in to their destination and then went 7600. If it did happen, yes, I would've had flight data call AFSS and get the pilot's alternate because there's a good chance they'll be heading that way. That would take all of a minute to get. After that, you monitor the track of the aircraft. Basic radar sep from them would be 1000 vert or 3 miles horz. Vector or assign altitudes to other aircraft to deconflict. If the aircraft appears to be leaving your airspace, handoff the aircraft to the next facility and let them monitor the aircraft's progress.

From the OP. "Say the weather is less than the 1-2-3 required to file an alternate. Yet, I neglect to file one. What happens?

Yup. Thats about it. There will be 3-4 people standing around watching, coordinating and paying real close attention to you. Then you land and you don't get in trouble with FSDO because you didn't file an alternate.

 

[denverpilot]

I get that you can make the call and get the alternate, just don't see why you should have to.

It's not that far of a stretch to see where you would need it.

If you're 7600 in the LIFR soup you're still going to be shooting the approach, if you ended up going missed and going to the planned alternate, it seems silly that ATC doesn't know/care where they should expect this 7600 IMC airplane. I guess if it's around a place with great radar that's one thing, but if you're below their coverage, what are they going to do, hold all IFR departures in the entire area till you make a phone call?


Could see this happening too, maybe pick up enough ice in your antennas, up the in north where reception is spotty in the first place, IFR/LIFR day. It is what it is, but it seems silly to make plans for your IFR flight and keep those plans from ATC, the people who are coordinating your flight.

Just lose the whole electrical system. You won't even be "7600", you'll be a primary-only target.

 

[flyingron]

How on earth can you apply 91.185 once you pass the destination? There isn't any route cleared, expected, or filed.

 

[Everskyward]

Since you are not being held to your filed alternate, why does it matter if ATC doesn't have immediate access?

 

[Velocity173]

How on earth can you apply 91.185 once you pass the destination? There isn't any route cleared, expected, or filed.

Not saying it applies after the destination but some of the decision making might be in line with it. The pilot might encounter VMC and land at an airport in the area. They'll most likely be going with MIA for altitude choice.

 

[flyingron]

And the 91.185 applies to the MIA how? It's neither the filed, cleared, or expected altitude. I suspect a pilot in such a situation wouldn't know what the MIA is anyhow, unless the missed approach point leads to an airway took him to the alternate. Whip out the sectional chart and start computing 1000 (or 2000) over the course line? Nope, he's likely to go to the altitude in the MSA circle or the OROCA or (the MEF with a little buffer). If he encounters VMC, that's good for him but it means nothing to ATC. He's still IFR at that point and ATC needs to keep other IFR traffic away from him.

91.185 is predicated on the fact that the pilot is on an IFR clearance to somewhere. Once he needs to depart from that, it's not of tremendous use.

 

[denverpilot]

I think the main take-away from this thread is that pilots are often taught the OWT that "if you have to go to your alternate, ATC will keep traffic away"... But in reality you may have crashed off the end of the original runway, gone to the alternate, gone somewhere else, or simply have gone "away" and the controller doesn't even have your alternate without making (a relatively quick) phone call.

Filing the alternate appears to be nothing more than CYA paperwork in a system not designed to actually use that information, even though there is law requiring pilots to do so. So you do it, and learn that nobody actually uses the thing in real world ops on the ATC side of things.

 

[Tflhndn]

Having just taking my instrument check ride, one of the questions during the oral was "when, if ever, are you required to fly to your alternate"

The correct answer was: when you lost comma and could not get into your destination

 

[Everskyward]

Filing the alternate appears to be nothing more than CYA paperwork in a system not designed to actually use that information, even though there is law requiring pilots to do so. So you do it, and learn that nobody actually uses the thing in real world ops on the ATC side of things.

My understanding is that they require pilots to file and alternate when the weather is worse than a certain value, 1-2-3 for Part 91, in order that they will presumably plan enough fuel for the conditions. It isn't because they assume the pilot will go to the filed alternate.

 

[Palmpilot]

And the 91.185 applies to the MIA how? It's neither the filed, cleared, or expected altitude.

91.185 also includes the MIA in that list. See 91.185(c)(2)(ii).

I suspect a pilot in such a situation wouldn't know what the MIA is anyhow, unless the missed approach point leads to an airway took him to the alternate. Whip out the sectional chart and start computing 1000 (or 2000) over the course line? Nope, he's likely to go to the altitude in the MSA circle or the OROCA or (the MEF with a little buffer).

If I ever get in that situation, my plan is to get on a published route, and stay on published routes until I either land or reach VMC. (I'm not saying that would help ATC though.)

If he encounters VMC, that's good for him but it means nothing to ATC. He's still IFR at that point and ATC needs to keep other IFR traffic away from him.

True, but if he reaches VMC, 91.185 requires him to remain in VMC and land as soon as practicable. Depending on how much the controller knows about the weather conditions at and near the aircraft's location, I can see how that might be relevant.

 

[Palmpilot]

Having just taking my instrument check ride, one of the questions during the oral was "when, if ever, are you required to fly to your alternate"

The correct answer was: when you lost comma and could not get into your destination

If by "your alternate" he meant "your filed alternate, that was an incorrect answer.

 

[Velocity173]

I think the main take-away from this thread is that pilots are often taught the OWT that "if you have to go to your alternate, ATC will keep traffic away"... But in reality you may have crashed off the end of the original runway, gone to the alternate, gone somewhere else, or simply have gone "away" and the controller doesn't even have your alternate without making (a relatively quick) phone call.

Filing the alternate appears to be nothing more than CYA paperwork in a system not designed to actually use that information, even though there is law requiring pilots to do so. So you do it, and learn that nobody actually uses the thing in real world ops on the ATC side of things.

My technique, if I'm going into a field where I might go missed, I tell ATC ahead of time of my intentions.

Like the F-5 story, I knew their destination, and route (direct), all I had to do was ask for a requested altitude. If somehow I would've lost comms with them on the go, everything was already taken care of. Even without losing comms, knowing where an aircraft is going after missed, makes for easier planning on the ATC end.

 

[flyingron]

They had a guy go into a field in Connecticut and tell ATC that he was likey going to have to go missed. He crashed on the missed and the controller forgot about him. Shouldn't have happened, his IFR plan was still open.

 

[flyingron]

True, but if he reaches VMC, 91.185 requires him to remain in VMC and land as soon as practicable. Depending on how much the controller knows about the weather conditions at and near the aircraft's location, I can see how that might be relevant.

Eh? Why is it the least bit relevant to the controller?

A pilot whose NORDO and missed his primary is going to land as soon as practicable anyhow. ATC needs to keep traffic clear whether it's IMC or VMC.

 

[Velocity173]

They had a guy go into a field in Connecticut and tell ATC that he was likey going to have to go missed. He crashed on the missed and the controller forgot about him. Shouldn't have happened, his IFR plan was still open.

I take it non-towered field? Probably waiting on his cancelation then forgot about him and chucked the strip in the bin.

 

[RotorDude]

Having just taking my instrument check ride, one of the questions during the oral was "when, if ever, are you required to fly to your alternate"
The correct answer was: when you lost comma and could not get into your destination

If by "your alternate" he meant "your filed alternate, that was an incorrect answer.

No, you are never required to fly to your alternate, filed or otherwise.

 

[Palmpilot]

Eh? Why is it the least bit relevant to the controller?

A pilot whose NORDO and missed his primary is going to land as soon as practicable anyhow. ATC needs to keep traffic clear whether it's IMC or VMC.

I said MIGHT be. A person with ATC experience has said that it might be relevant, and I'm not seeing a basis to dispute it.

 

[Palmpilot]

No, you are never required to fly to your alternate, filed or otherwise.

If you can't get into your destination, you have to land somewhere.

 

[roncachamp]

I get that you can make the call and get the alternate, just don't see why you should have to.

It's not that far of a stretch to see where you would need it.

I don't understand. What call would be made? What do you mean by "get the alternate"?

If you're 7600 in the LIFR soup you're still going to be shooting the approach, if you ended up going missed and going to the planned alternate, it seems silly that ATC doesn't know/care where they should expect this 7600 IMC airplane. I guess if it's around a place with great radar that's one thing, but if you're below their coverage, what are they going to do, hold all IFR departures in the entire area till you make a phone call?

They're going to do whatever it takes. What do you feel they should do? Clear the sole path between your filed destination and your filed alternate and run normal traffic everywhere else?

Could see this happening too, maybe pick up enough ice in your antennas, up the in north where reception is spotty in the first place, IFR/LIFR day. It is what it is, but it seems silly to make plans for your IFR flight and keep those plans from ATC, the people who are coordinating your flight.

So tell them. State every possible contingency and your plan for resolving them before your comm radios crap out but leave your nav capability oddly unaffected.

 

[roncachamp]

Having just taking my instrument check ride, one of the questions during the oral was "when, if ever, are you required to fly to your alternate"

The correct answer was: when you lost comma and could not get into your destination

The correct answer is "Never".

 

[RotorDude]

The correct answer is "Never".

This.

 

[RotorDude]

If you can't get into your destination, you have to land somewhere.

True, but there is no rule or regulation requiring you to fly anywhere. You might also decide to bail out (not uncommon in the old days).

 

[denverpilot]

Having just taking my instrument check ride, one of the questions during the oral was "when, if ever, are you required to fly to your alternate"

The correct answer was: when you lost comma and could not get into your destination

That's a dumb and dangerous answer. Maybe your filed alternate went 0/0 too and there's a better place to go with your remaining fuel.

If by "your alternate" he meant "your filed alternate, that was an incorrect answer.

Yup.

Eh? Why is it the least bit relevant to the controller?

A pilot whose NORDO and missed his primary is going to land as soon as practicable anyhow. ATC needs to keep traffic clear whether it's IMC or VMC.

If they can. If you really disappeared it's emergency procedures time for them, call SAR. If you still have a transponder and you're squawking, or they can find your primary return, different story.

So tell them. State every possible contingency and your plan for resolving them before your comm radios crap out but leave your nav capability oddly unaffected.

My emergency backup Nav is in an iPad. It doesn't work so well as a transceiver or transponder.

The correct answer is "Never".

Correct.

True, but there is no rule or regulation requiring you to fly anywhere. You might also decide to bail out (not uncommon in the old days).

Or pull the Cirrus chute.

 

[denverpilot]

My understanding is that they require pilots to file and alternate when the weather is worse than a certain value, 1-2-3 for Part 91, in order that they will presumably plan enough fuel for the conditions. It isn't because they assume the pilot will go to the filed alternate.

In other words, paperwork. For proving you were stupid after you're dead.

If you have so little self-preservation sense as to not put appropriate fuel on board to GTFO of bad weather, if needed, no amount of FAA telling you to do so is going to matter.

But there's a lot of people out there, including some CFIs I've met who'll tell you that filing an alternate is so "ATC knows where you're going, and will get traffic out of your way..." They don't know unless they can still see ya on the scope...

And if they can't see ya, they aren't moving anyone.

You're just a NORDO in a cloud, and maybe the local sheriff will be wandering around at your alternate to see if your airplane is on the ramp, when you land.

 

[flyingron]

You're just a NORDO in a cloud, and maybe the local sheriff will be wandering around at your alternate to see if your airplane is on the ramp, when you land.

Only about an hour after you were due to arrive unless you call ATC when you do get down to close the IFR plan. There's not really much difference between landing NORDO or in comms for that matter.

 

[Everskyward]

In other words, paperwork. For proving you were stupid after you're dead.

If you have so little self-preservation sense as to not put appropriate fuel on board to GTFO of bad weather, if needed, no amount of FAA telling you to do so is going to matter.

But there's a lot of people out there, including some CFIs I've met who'll tell you that filing an alternate is so "ATC knows where you're going, and will get traffic out of your way..." They don't know unless they can still see ya on the scope...

And if they can't see ya, they aren't moving anyone.

You're just a NORDO in a cloud, and maybe the local sheriff will be wandering around at your alternate to see if your airplane is on the ramp, when you land.

Like it or not, there are many rules out there designed to cover your ass, and those of your passengers, for you.

 

[denverpilot]

Like it or not, there are many rules out there designed to cover your ass, and those of your passengers, for you.

Designed to try anyway... Doesn't actually do it... That's still on the pilot.

 

[Everskyward]

Designed to try anyway... Doesn't actually do it... That's still on the pilot.

True, but it's like most other rules established by not only the FAA, but other governmental and non-governmental entities. You are planning to be a professional pilot. Get ready for the rules your employer is going to impose on you.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

sheesh, it's so simple to jab an airport code into the box - if it helps me be legal, or in the future at least might help someone - I am doing it.

 

[denverpilot]

True, but it's like most other rules established by not only the FAA, but other governmental and non-governmental entities. You are planning to be a professional pilot. Get ready for the rules your employer is going to impose on you.

Oh been plenty fine with employers and their rules forever. No worries.

Remember I work in the industry that Scott Adams based Dilbert on. And it's a documentary, not fiction. Ha.

This guy in Australia confirmed it in 2009. It hasn't changed: (And it's a good video for newbies...)

 

[denverpilot]

PS Analyzing that the rule is useless vs following the rule are two different things @Everskyward -- heh.

Don't mistake an engineer pointing out something is utterly useless for their unwilingness to bow down to whatever powers that be to receive a paycheck no matter how stupid the rule is. Haha.

Translation: I'm way more money motivated than worried about following a rule that is meaningless. Hehehe. It's just nice to know the BS taught about the rule is exactly that, BS.

 

[Everskyward]

PS Analyzing that the rule is useless vs following the rule are two different things @Everskyward -- heh.

Don't mistake an engineer pointing out something is utterly useless for their unwilingness to bow down to whatever powers that be to receive a paycheck no matter how stupid the rule is. Haha.

Translation: I'm way more money motivated than worried about following a rule that is meaningless. Hehehe. It's just nice to know the BS taught about the rule is exactly that, BS.

I get that. My eyes have worn out from being rolled.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Funny thread.

Filing a "legal" alternate is a flight planning tool. As in, do you have enough fuel to go somewhere where, based on forecasts, available navaid, etc, you have a better chance of getting in if the weather really sucks at your destination.

Your filed alternate has zero regulatory significance in terms of what you actually do when your wheels leave the ground. Weather changes and forecasts turn out to be wrong. So you go where it's better if you run into a problem. Heck, I sometimes consider two potential alternates to begin with. If my destination is coastal and the weather worse than forecast, my also coastal but big airport reasonably near my destination alternate (my personal preference for filed alternates) is probably going to be worse than forecast also. So I also think in terms of whether I can make it to something further inland.

It may or may not be silly to have a rule requiring proof of your preflight planning be listed in your flight plan since, but since I don't see anything silly about the planning process it reflects, the argument that the rule is a bad one or a useless one makes me yawn.

 

[denverpilot]

It may or may not be silly to have a rule requiring proof of your preflight planning be listed in your flight plan since, but since I don't see anything silly about the planning process it reflects, the argument that the rule is a bad one or a useless one makes me yawn.

I just find the OWTs surrounding it entertaining.

Someone studying the FARs on their own may think "Oh that's a good idea! *Make* people file an alternate and everyone knows where they're going and all that! [gush!]"

Then they go fly with an instructor who says...

"Doesn't matter what you filed, you'd better have like ten places you might want to go and know damn well how much fuel you have on board before you go a'wandering in IMC, and be willing to change your 'plan' at any time, anywhere, along the way..."

That's when our gushing noob realizes, "Oh yeah. Always PIC. Stuff changes. Duh."

Then they go read an accident report where some doofus tried twelve times to get into their filed alternate when they could have turned a different direction after going missed at their intended original destination and flown 20 minutes to VMC, landed and survived.

And THEN they meet some controllers in the real world who mention, "We don't even have your filed alternate on your flight strip. We seriously don't care."

The difference between legal-beagle BS trying to fix broken brains, and the real world. If anything it helps break the brain more than fixing it.

There's no such thing as a SINGLE alternate.* The rule gives that dumb and bad impression on impressionable noobs.




*Greg Bockleman's new home base and certain routes over large oceans and horribly inhospitable places, excepted. For the majority of us, the correct brain path is to know at engine start there are X number of suitable airports within range, and decreasing in number as the clock ticks by...

And all of them are possible alternates.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You are absolutely right, Nate. Your thought that the rule, misunderstood, can lead to accidents and fatalities is well taken. But that is unfortunately true of a lot of things we do in aviation whether it's a rule or not. I often wonder how many gear up landings occur because, in the process of learning GUMP in a 172, the pilot also learned it doesn't matter if you forget the U.

 

[denverpilot]

You are absolutely right, Nate. Your thought that the rule, misunderstood, can lead to accidents and fatalities is well taken. But that is unfortunately true of a lot of things we do in aviation whether it's a rule or not. I often wonder how many gear up landings occur because, in the process of learning GUMP in a 172, the pilot also learned it doesn't matter if you forget the U.

I fly different types so I do GUMPS in the 182, but I use it to think and I respond to each step... And if I'm tired, it's out loud. "Undercarriage: Not required in THIS aircraft..."

That habit started as an extension of a concern a different CFI had. That slow flight and other things in aircraft with gear WARNINGS teaches people to ignore them. He wanted an out loud acknowledgement of the gear warning and a statement about why it was being ignored.

Beep beep beep...

"Gear warning: We are performing a maneuver and not landing."

That way if you're triggered to ACT whenever it makes noises -- you'll be more likely to register it and not just let the DSP processor between your ears filter it out on final when you forget the gear someday and it goes off when you pull the throttle back.

He wanted the response to be a positive one, never a passive one.

I think that works with GUMPS also. Positively acknowledging that one of the steps is being not done on purpose makes you think. Just skipping it silently you don't know if the pilot is learning to skip it by rote or not.

As long as the brain is actually engaged and present and thinking, I don't mind using the memory tricks. But I think when teaching folks we have to figure out how to make sure people aren't just flying through them without thought. I went through a phase where GUMPS was too rote.

Flying the twin has made me think harder about it too. Sometimes I want the gear down at the FAF or downwind like I "normally" would with the GUMPS on final as a backup, but single engine performance won't allow it -- so you only get one shot to toss the gear out late.

It gets really weird when an engine "fails" in the pattern and they're already down... Bring them up to hold altitude and then have to make damn sure they're back down on final... Heh. Gets a little busy... But really makes you think about it! Well the VSI forces the issue a bit...

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Totally agreed. I was just surprised that FILING could be an infraction. Here's a convoluted example to illustrate what I'm talking about:

I file an IFR flight plan for our club airplane and neglect to include an alternate when one is required. I later decide not to take the flight (for whatever reason). But weather clears up and one of the other members takes the plane VFR and has something happen that gets the FAA involved. If I understand this correctly, *I* could be at risk for an infraction (of 91.169), despite the fact that I was nowhere near the airplane.

You're getting WAY too into the weeds on this one. Your friend has a problem with the FAA you honestly think they are gonna care about the alternate you didn't file with the flight plan you didn't take? I filed many flight plans I didn't take just for practice. No harm in that. FAA has bigger fish to fry, like your friend.

 

[flyingron]

The FAA doesn't give a hoot on filed but never opened flight plans. Even people who aren't pilots have filed plans.