91.169 question

[poadeleted20]

I'm suggesting that a pilot fly to whatever airport makes the most sense given the situation if he goes nordo. The lost comm regulations were written for a different era (non-radar) and for the most part simply don't make sense today. The real purpose of the alternate filing requirements are to make it fairly likely you can go missed at your filed destination and get to an airport where you can successfully complete an approach and land without running out of fuel on the way.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've attended two ATC Rainchecks at different centers at which the "alternate is only for lost comm" philosophy was emphasized.

Just goes to show that there are controllers who don't understand the regs which apply to pilots.

No matter what the regs say, center wants your butt on the ground and out of their airspace ASAP if they can't talk to you.

No question about the truth of that statement, but if you ask Flight Standards or the Chief Counsel, they'll tell you that 91.185(c) means what it says. OTOH, there are also 91.7(b) and 91.3(b) which tell us a) that if your airplane becomes unairworthy in flight (2-way radio comm being necessary for airworthiness for IFR flight), get it on the ground, and b) if the PIC thinks safety is in question, the PIC can push aside any Part 91 regulation in order to land safely. I'll take the latter two over the former one any day of the week and twice on Sunday, and if the FSDO doesn't like it, I'm happy to argue that before the ALJ and if necessary the NTSB.

 

[poadeleted20]

OK - Ron seemed to say that you couldn't file to a GPS-only airport without filing an alternate too if your GPS was C129, even if the weather (1-2-3 rule) didn't require an alternate.

I was.

Of that I'm not (yet) convinced.

You can ask AFS-400 for confirmation if you like. I believe it's also discussed in your AFMS.

 

[wabower]

BTDT, total electrical failure during IFR trip. Ain't no judges or standards people around when it happens, you're dealing solely with ATC. Whether they understand it or not is immaterial, their interpretation is the only one that matters at the time.

Just goes to show that there are controllers who don't understand the regs which apply to pilots.

No question about the truth of that statement, but if you ask Flight Standards or the Chief Counsel, they'll tell you that 91.185(c) means what it says. OTOH, there are also 91.7(b) and 91.3(b) which tell us a) that if your airplane becomes unairworthy in flight (2-way radio comm being necessary for airworthiness for IFR flight), get it on the ground, and b) if the PIC thinks safety is in question, the PIC can push aside any Part 91 regulation in order to land safely. I'll take the latter two over the former one any day of the week and twice on Sunday, and if the FSDO doesn't like it, I'm happy to argue that before the ALJ and if necessary the NTSB.

 

[poadeleted20]

BTDT, total electrical failure during IFR trip. Ain't no judges or standards people around when it happens, you're dealing solely with ATC. Whether they understand it or not is immaterial, their interpretation is the only one that matters at the time.

As I see it, they can't write you up for obeying 91.185(c) as published, and they aren't going to write you up for doing what makes their life easier. So, either way, you should be safe from enforcement action. Sort of an inverse Catch-22, and for once, it's in the pilot's favor.

 

[wabower]

Absolutely. Which gets back to the issue at hand. Without lost com issue, nothing else matters. Just tell the nice man where you want to go next.

As I see it, they can't write you up for obeying 91.185(c) as published, and they aren't going to write you up for doing what makes their life easier. So, either way, you should be safe from enforcement action. Sort of an inverse Catch-22, and for once, it's in the pilot's favor.

 

[poadeleted20]

Keep in mind that these days, 91.185(c) is pretty much just a training exercise for IR trainees. Today, with reliable modern solid-state avionics, hand-held radios, cell phones, and the like, the incidence of true lost comm where the aircraft retains the ability for IFR navigation (essential to follow the reg) but the pilot is truly unable to communicate with ATC (as opposed to switchology errors, headsets becoming unplugged, being on the wrong freq, etc) is pretty much nil. It's been a very long time since I've heard of that happening.

 

[azure]

ATC has no clue what your alternate is. The alternate has nothing to do with lost commo. SQK 7600 and go missed for another approach or go to your alternate. ATC will clear the way. This thread seems familiar.

So the alternate isn't part of the strip? Does CLNC see it when they issue you your clearance? Or is it lost in the aether as far as ATC is concerned? Where is it stored?

 

[Velocity173]

So the alternate isn't part of the strip? Does CLNC see it when they issue you your clearance? Or is it lost in the aether as far as ATC is concerned? Where is it stored?

Nope. I haven't done ATC in a few years but I asked my bro who is a current controller and he said nothing has changed. The only way to find your alternate is by calling FSS or checking DUATS. The alternate is one of many things that don't show up on the strip (pilots name, color aircraft, phone number etc). Maybe the system should be changed to allow ATC to see what the alternate is??? The thing is, if you're lost commo and you're missed, you're an emergency and you're going to go anywhere you see fit. ATC will watch you until you land. The alternate is a planning requirement for bad wx, not a lost commo requirement.

 

[azure]

Nope. I haven't done ATC in a few years but I asked my bro who is a current controller and he said nothing has changed. The only way to find your alternate is by calling FSS or checking DUATS. The alternate is one of many things that don't show up on the strip (pilots name, color aircraft, phone number etc). Maybe the system should be changed to allow ATC to see what the alternate is??? The thing is, if you're lost commo and you're missed, you're an emergency and you're going to go anywhere you see fit. ATC will watch you until you land. The alternate is a planning requirement for bad wx, not a lost commo requirement.

That's what I was always taught, that it's to force you to carry enough fuel to reach a field with an approach you can reasonably expect to be able to fly, and not to go if conditions might be so bad that you couldn't reach a field above minimums with the fuel you can carry. But I did think that in a lost comms situation they would expect you to go to your alternate, and get unhappy if you surprised them and went somewhere else.

 

[wabower]

Not at all. They're happiest when you're safely on the ground the quickest.

But I did think that in a lost comms situation they would expect you to go to your alternate, and get unhappy if you surprised them and went somewhere else.

 

[azure]

You can't consider them at either destination or alternate. The issue is that since the non-WAAS GPS is only a supplemental nav system, you must have an alternate means of IFR navigation to your destination. If the only approach there is GPS, you don't have an alternate means to get there, and you need an alternate airport.

But then by that reasoning, shouldn't it be illegal to file a route off airways if all you have is a basic, non-WAAS GPS? I remember arguing that a couple of months ago and someone -- I think it was you? -- convinced me that I was wrong. :worthiesmilie: If you need an alternate if you file to an airport without an approach you could fly with an approved sole source navigation system, why can you file a route with a basic GPS that you couldn't fly if you lost your satellites?

I seem to recall that in the other thread the reason given was that if you lost your satellites, ATC would clear you along a route you could fly. It's easy to imagine that the alternate route might be long enough to alter your fuel calculations. So what is the difference between the two issues?

I'm tired and I could easily be missing something -- wouldn't be the first time.

 

[poadeleted20]

But then by that reasoning, shouldn't it be illegal to file a route off airways if all you have is a basic, non-WAAS GPS?

No, because you can still return to a VOR-based route to get to that destination.

I seem to recall that in the other thread the reason given was that if you lost your satellites, ATC would clear you along a route you could fly.

Exactly.

In any event, it doesn't all have to make sense when taken as a whole -- it's just the way the FAA has written the rules.

 

[azure]

In any event, it doesn't all have to make sense when taken as a whole -- it's just the way the FAA has written the rules.

Do you have a reference for the rule that says you need an alternate if your destination doesn't have any approaches that you could fly without your basic GPS (but has a GPS approach that you could fly with it)? I know that you can't consider GPS approaches at your alternate if all you have is a non-WAAS GPS -- that's spelled out in AIM 1-1-19. If there's anything explicit about not considering them at your destination, I haven't found it yet.

 

[gismo]

In any event, it's unlikely to make sense when taken as a whole -- it's just the way the FAA has written the rules.

FTFY.

 

[poadeleted20]

Do you have a reference for the rule that says you need an alternate if your destination doesn't have any approaches that you could fly without your basic GPS (but has a GPS approach that you could fly with it)? I know that you can't consider GPS approaches at your alternate if all you have is a non-WAAS GPS -- that's spelled out in AIM 1-1-19. If there's anything explicit about not considering them at your destination, I haven't found it yet.

Regulatory reference? No, although I think it's discussed in the AFMS for the non-WAAS GPS's, and 91.9 gives them force of regulation. Beyond that, you'll have to ask AFS-400.

 

[TMetzinger]

Regulatory reference? No, although I think it's discussed in the AFMS for the non-WAAS GPS's, and 91.9 gives them force of regulation. Beyond that, you'll have to ask AFS-400.

I'll look at an afms tomorrow... but I don't think it mentions limitations on destination airports. Ron, if you can find an example that matches your claim that would be helpful.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[John Collins]

Do you have a reference for the rule that says you need an alternate if your destination doesn't have any approaches that you could fly without your basic GPS (but has a GPS approach that you could fly with it)? I know that you can't consider GPS approaches at your alternate if all you have is a non-WAAS GPS -- that's spelled out in AIM 1-1-19. If there's anything explicit about not considering them at your destination, I haven't found it yet.

There are no references, it is strictly an opinion and it is not supported by regulation or AIM material. If such a limitation existed, it would have to be included in any C129a AFMS, which it isn't. It might be a good practice to follow, but in no way is it required. BTW, I meet with AFS all the time and discuss these kinds of issues at ATPAC meetings, ACF-IPG meetings and via phone and email and am not aware of such a limitation.

 

[TMetzinger]

I just looked at the AFMS for a KLN-94 in a 172S. In the Limitations section:

3.d.5) When an alternate airport is required by the applicable operating rules, it must be served by an approach based on other than GPS or Loran-C navigation.

g. The airplane must have other approved navigation equipment appropriate to the route of flight installed and operational.

Nothing in there about limits on destination airports at all.

 

[John Collins]

I just looked at the AFMS for a KLN-94 in a 172S. In the Limitations section:

3.d.5) When an alternate airport is required by the applicable operating rules, it must be served by an approach based on other than GPS or Loran-C navigation.

g. The airplane must have other approved navigation equipment appropriate to the route of flight installed and operational.

Nothing in there about limits on destination airports at all.

Agree. I have the AFMS for all the GPS my Avionics shop installed (I have since retired) and none of them have the restriction on Destination.

 

[azure]

Nothing in there about limits on destination airports at all.

I would have to check the 430 (non-WAAS) AFM for one of our club planes since my airplane has a 480... but this doesn't surprise me. It seems as if something like that would be stated explicitly in the AIM if it were intended.

But the part I have trouble with is "other equipment appropriate for the route of flight installed and operational" which is so broadly worded (specifically, where does your "route of flight" begin and end?) that I did read it to imply what I said in the other thread (that you aren't supposed to file a route that you couldn't fly on your own nav with approved equipment other than the basic GPS), and I'm still not 100% certain that isn't true. If that reading is correct it would seem to imply the limit on destination airports. It seems like a very gray area.

 

[flyingron]

Go to a raincheck and listen to ATC's opinion. Why would the alternate matter if communication were possible, especially when a high percentage of the filings are throw-away entries anyway?

Every controller's comments I've ever heard jibes with what I said. If you're in Radar coverage they're just going to keep people away from your (possibily primary only) target. If you aren't in radar coverage, they really still have to cut you a pretty wide swath for the reasons I stated. Frankly, expecting a pilot in a lost com situation who can't get into the primary to be heading for a filed alternate is wishful thinking.

While you're required to FILE an alternate, you're also required to HAVE an alternate under 91.167 and enough fuel taking that alternate into account at all times in the flight.

This is different than the VFR rules where the fuel requirements say "no person may begin a flight..."

 

[John Collins]

I would have to check the 430 (non-WAAS) AFM for one of our club planes since my airplane has a 480... but this doesn't surprise me. It seems as if something like that would be stated explicitly in the AIM if it were intended.

But the part I have trouble with is "other equipment appropriate for the route of flight installed and operational" which is so broadly worded (specifically, where does your "route of flight" begin and end?) that I did read it to imply what I said in the other thread (that you aren't supposed to file a route that you couldn't fly on your own nav with approved equipment other than the basic GPS), and I'm still not 100% certain that isn't true. If that reading is correct it would seem to imply the limit on destination airports. It seems like a very gray area.

I have checked the GNS430 legacy AFMS and there are no limitations on the destination. The information you seek is contained within AC 90-100A and the associated spreadsheet, AC 90-105 and AC 90-108. AC 90-100A describes what is required to fly traditional routes such as airways or VOR to VOR and in the spreadsheet it lists the limitations with respect to substitution for specific GPS units that predate the AC. If you choose a route using GPS direct and once in route, the GPS fails or lack of RAIM prevents its use, then you must revert to using other means of navigation for your route. For a C129a GPS, the AFMS will have a limitation requiring that the aircraft be equipped with other means of navigation suitable for the route. If you are using GPS and have to revert to the VOR ... then notify ATC to provide you an amended clearance. At least for now, on such a random direct route, ATC is required to have you in radar contact and monitoring your flight or they may not issue the clearance. If radar contact is lost, you will have to proceed to the nearest airway, VOR, or route to continue flight.

 

[wabower]

So if I attend two Rainchecks at different centers during different years and listen to two separate presentations by two separate senior controllers (people who handle this stuff as part of their daily job and are specifically trained for this possibility) am I supposed to believe them or some guys on the internet waving reg books at each other, none of whom can explain exactly how it's supposed to work?

Actually that's a rhetorical question because I've already done it for real since the Rainchecks and know exactly what I did the first time and will do again if/when it's necessary.

Every controller's comments I've ever heard jibes with what I said. If you're in Radar coverage they're just going to keep people away from your (possibily primary only) target. If you aren't in radar coverage, they really still have to cut you a pretty wide swath for the reasons I stated. Frankly, expecting a pilot in a lost com situation who can't get into the primary to be heading for a filed alternate is wishful thinking.

While you're required to FILE an alternate, you're also required to HAVE an alternate under 91.167 and enough fuel taking that alternate into account at all times in the flight.

This is different than the VFR rules where the fuel requirements say "no person may begin a flight..."

 

[Velocity173]

So if I attend two Rainchecks at different centers during different years and listen to two separate presentations by two separate senior controllers (people who handle this stuff as part of their daily job and are specifically trained for this possibility) am I supposed to believe them or some guys on the internet waving reg books at each other, none of whom can explain exactly how it's supposed to work?

Actually that's a rhetorical question because I've already done it for real since the Rainchecks and know exactly what I did the first time and will do again if/when it's necessary.

What is the point you're trying to make? If you experience commo failure and happen to go missed, I agree and most controllers would agree you're going to your alternate. If you don't and land somewhere else because you're trying to comply with 91.185 or simply excercising your emergency authority, oh well ATC won't care. They only care about the pilot landing safely. It's really not that hard to move other aircraft out of the way. What most of us are saying is that the purpose of alternate isn't for lost commo. It's a planning requirement that doesn't even have to be excecuted in a missed. I've had plenty of guys go missed when I worked approach and I simply say "where do you want to go?" it's takes all of ten seconds for the data guy to type in a destination and for me to clear him. This new destination might not even be his alternate if conditions have worsened at their alternate.

ATC is quite flexible when it comes to lost commo missed approach. While I and most of my controller friends would agree, we expect the pilot to go to their alternate, since I don't have it I really don't care where they go. Find a place that has an acceptable IAP and land.

 

[wabower]

Which again gets back to the original point and IMO is why center says alternates are all about lost comm. Otherwise why would they emphasize it so strongly? Why else would it matter?

I can safely say that I'd never thought about the reason for a single minute prior to the first program at KC center, and found the concept to be quite interesting but logical after they explained it. BTW, the FTW Raincheck was attended by a number of local pilots who still fly regularly and will verify the content of the presentations. I haven't followed the raincheck programs for a while and don't know if they still offer them. If so, I'd like to know if the script has changed.

What is the point you're trying to make? If you experience commo failure and happen to go missed, I agree and most controllers would agree you're going to your alternate. If you don't and land somewhere else because you're trying to comply with 91.185 or simply excercising your emergency authority, oh well ATC won't care. They only care about the pilot landing safely. It's really not that hard to move other aircraft out of the way. What most of us are saying is that the purpose of alternate isn't for lost commo. It's a planning requirement that doesn't even have to be excecuted in a missed. I've had plenty of guys go missed when I worked approach and I simply say "where do you want to go?" it's takes all of ten seconds for the data guy to type in a destination and for me to clear him. This new destination might not even be his alternate if conditions have worsened at their alternate.

ATC is quite flexible when it comes to lost commo missed approach. While I and most of my controller friends would agree, we expect the pilot to go to their alternate, since I don't have it I really don't care where they go. Find a place that has an acceptable IAP and land.

 

[flyingron]

I think you misunderstood their emphasis. I think their statement is that the alternate is only possibly useful in lost comm situation but what they don't say is that they don't even use it then. In fact it's not even used for SAR. SAR works on picking the last place you are known to be and given the amount of fuel you said you have aboard, how far you could possibly be form that point.

 

[wabower]

I'm not bilingual, so would agree about the misunderstanding if the presentation had been in Spanish. But they stuck with English and made it clear even to the B students in the room. The way it was presented wasn't an OBTW issue but was one of those things that caused a "I be damn, I didn't know that" reaction.

But what do they know?

I think you misunderstood their emphasis. I think their statement is that the alternate is only possibly useful in lost comm situation but what they don't say is that they don't even use it then. In fact it's not even used for SAR. SAR works on picking the last place you are known to be and given the amount of fuel you said you have aboard, how far you could possibly be form that point.

 

[nosehair]

the filed alternate is meaningless in a lost comm situation, then what the hell is the point of filing it in the first place?

The main point of filing an alternate is, a record that a legal alternate did exist during the filing process. At the actual time of a missed approach, the pilot makes a real time decision as to where he will go based on current wx, fuel, ect.
Just as fuel on board, #of pax, color, etc., is not passed on to ATC.
These details may be pulled up in abnormal situations, but are unnecessary for normal ATC functions.

 

[azure]

The main point of filing an alternate is, a record that a legal alternate did exist during the filing process. At the actual time of a missed approach, the pilot makes a real time decision as to where he will go based on current wx, fuel, ect.
Just as fuel on board, #of pax, color, etc., is not passed on to ATC.
These details may be pulled up in abnormal situations, but are unnecessary for normal ATC functions.

Thanks, it's good to know what is and is not passed on to ATC. Yesterday when I filed to KPTK and back using Foreflight, I actually forgot to put an alternate and called FSS to try to amend the plan before it went out to ATC. I told the briefer that I had neglected to fill in some "required elements" and she proceeded to take the info needed to file a new plan. When she understood that the ONLY thing I needed to add was an alternate, she explained that in that case, there was no point in filing a new plan since that part of the plan wouldn't be sent to Center anyway. She did indeed say that the only reason for the alternate was to have it on record that I had filed one, and she made sure that my record was complete.