Alternate Airport Selection Minimum

[tsts4]

Great. So basically modifying that to say: "600-2/800-2 or meeting any non standard approach minimum weather requirements for the approach planned at the alternate airport"

I have not seen one yet, but I assume there is airports that will have approach requirements for greater ceilings and/or vis than the standards?

For the purposes of alternate selection that is correct. If you look at an approach plate and in the notes section of the briefing strip there's a black triangle with a white "A" then that approach has non-standard alternate minimums (i.e. something other than 600-2 or 800-2 depending on the type of approach). So you have to look it up to see what the alternate mins are when applying the 1-2-3 rule and use those alt min ceiling and vis numbers rather than the standard.

 

[JasonM]

Yes, see the ILS approaches at KRNO for an example.

Perfect.

For the purposes of alternate selection that is correct. If you look at an approach plate and in the notes section of the briefing strip there's a black triangle with a white "A" then that approach has non-standard alternate minimums (i.e. something other than 600-2 or 800-2 depending on the type of approach). So you have to look it up to see what the alternate mins are when applying the 1-2-3 rule and use those alt min ceiling and vis numbers rather than the standard.

Thank you.

 

[dtuuri]

The Chief Counsel misinterprets the rule (yet again) because they don't know aircraft operations and don't understand those who do and try to explain it to them. Here's the interp: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...6/gallagher - (2006) legal interpretation.pdf

When applied to, say, an old fuel-guzzling Learjet, this means the pilot needs to carry enough fuel for three climbs to altitude, once for the original takeoff, once again for the missed approach and trip to an alternate, then again as part of the 45 minutes of normal cruising flight after landing at the alternate.

The rule actually only requires two climbs, since flying "to" the alternate only means "over" it--it is, after all, a radius of action fuel planning requirement.

Sounds like the Chief Counsel made that "interpretation" up out'a whole cloth?

It's a significant operational burden. If you need only two climb fuel loads you can carry an extra passenger or two or increase the radius for a reachable legal alternate. It's amazing how often one or the other become limiting factors in those early Lears. Not to mention the fact that it costs fuel to carry fuel, day after day, to meet that needless requirement.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

It doesn't, John. The Chief Counsel misinterprets the rule (yet again) because they don't know aircraft operations and don't understand those who do and try to explain it to them. Here's the interp: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...6/gallagher - (2006) legal interpretation.pdf

When applied to, say, an old fuel-guzzling Learjet, this means the pilot needs to carry enough fuel for three climbs to altitude, once for the original takeoff, once again for the missed approach and trip to an alternate, then again as part of the 45 minutes of normal cruising flight after landing at the alternate.

The rule actually only requires two climbs, since flying "to" the alternate only means "over" it--it is, after all, a radius of action fuel planning requirement.

Of course, climbs burn much more fuel than cruising in turbojets and descents burn much less, so what you save during the descent offsets the extra you need for an approach. The Chief Counsel blew it again and we're stuck with it.

Note: Part 121 rules for alternates are more carefully worded and don't require three climbs, IIRC.

dtuuri

But common sense would say that even as a fuel planning requirement the ability to fly "to" an airport without approaching or landing would be questionable. If you had to do an approach you would be eating into the 45 minute reserve.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

But common sense would say that even as a fuel planning requirement the ability to fly "to" an airport without approaching or landing would be questionable. If you had to do an approach you would be eating into the 45 minute reserve.

There might be some logic to that but OTOH maybe that's what the 45 minutes are for? At any rate 91.167 doesn't require more than fuel to your destination plus your filed alternate plus 45 minutes.

 

[dtuuri]

But common sense would say that even as a fuel planning requirement the ability to fly "to" an airport without approaching or landing would be questionable. If you had to do an approach you would be eating into the 45 minute reserve.

That's not "common sense" it's "faulty thinking". You burn less fuel in the descent than if you stayed at altitude, it's the most efficient phase of the flight. You save enough to offset the approach. You don't need three climbs to altitude to reach your alternate and have 45 minutes of reserve either. You'll note that, IIRC, Part 121 doesn't require a landing at the destination, only at the furthest alternate (they always need an alternate IIRC), unlike Part 91, so that results in only two climbs. But I think the Chief Counsel cheated them with another interpretation too.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks. I modified my current understanding. Is this correct?


I fly an IFR Certified Non-WAAS G1000.

If I am planning an IFR flight and my destination has an active instrument approach my airplane is capable of flying legally and is forecasting +&- 1hr, 2000'+ ceilings and 3+ miles Vis, I dont need to even file an alternate.

Correct.

If the Destination weather is below the "123" rule, then I will need an alternate.

Correct.

I cannot plan on flying to an alternate if all of thier approaches have the "N/A"

Not correct. You can still use an airport with no approaches you can fly/no approaches not marked A-NA if the forecast weather for your time of arrival there will allow descent under VFR from the MEA to landing.

I cannot plan on flying to an alternate if my initial destination and the Alternate only offer non-ground based nav aid approaches (GPS).

...unless the forecast weather for your time of arrival there will allow descent under VFR from the MEA to landing.

I can plan on the Destination and the Alternate both using ground based nav aids if available.

Correct.

The alternate must have a forecast of 600' cielings and 2mi Vis if using a precision approach (ILS). or.. 800' ceilings and 2mi Vis if using a non-precision approach (RNAV). or be forecast to allow VFR decent from the MEA.

Correct, except if the approach at the alternate has the Triangle-A mark, in which case you have to look up the nonstandard alternate weather mins for that approach in the front of the Terminal Procedures book and use that instead of the standard 600/800-2 alternate weather mins.

All things considered, I'd say you score about an 85 on this test.

 

[Everskyward]

That's not "common sense" it's "faulty thinking". You burn less fuel in the descent than if you stayed at altitude, it's the most efficient phase of the flight. You save enough to offset the approach. You don't need three climbs to altitude to reach your alternate and have 45 minutes of reserve either. You'll note that, IIRC, Part 121 doesn't require a landing at the destination, only at the furthest alternate (they always need an alternate IIRC), unlike Part 91, so that results in only two climbs. But I think the Chief Counsel cheated them with another interpretation too.

dtuuri

You are assuming that you are not even going to try the approach at your destination and that is not always the case.

To me, the phrase "fly to the airport" means that you fly at least to the point where you land or do a missed approach. It doesn't merely mean fly overhead.

 

[poadeleted20]

To me, the phrase "fly to the airport" means that you fly at least to the point where you land or do a missed approach. It doesn't merely mean fly overhead.

I agree. And apparently so did the Flight Standards folks when the lawyers consulted them while writing that interpretation. Of course, that was the Air Transport group (AFS-200) rather than the General Aviation group (AFS-800), and those folks will be naturally more conservative, but it still seems appropriate to me given that the true purpose of this regulation is to require pilots to carry enough fuel to have a good set of options if they miss the approach at their destination.

 

[JasonM]

All things considered, I'd say you score about an 85 on this test.

85

I really appreciate everyones help here. I guess my thinking was not having VFR for the alternate. I need to remember that as always being an option.

Your definition here is a little hard for me to understand. what is fly/no? == "You can still use an airport with no approaches you can fly/no approaches not marked A-NA" Are you saying I cannot fly any approaches marked A-N/A? If so, why couldn't I fly a N/A approach if the conditions were forecasting VFR?

 

[poadeleted20]

Your definition here is a little hard for me to understand. what is fly/no? == "You can still use an airport with no approaches you can fly/no approaches not marked A-NA" Are you saying I cannot fly any approaches marked A-N/A? If so, why couldn't I fly a N/A approach if the conditions were forecasting VFR?

I was trying to say, "You can still file as your required alternate either (an airport with no approaches you can fly) or (an airport with no approaches not marked A-NA) if the forecast weather for your time of arrival there will allow descent under VFR from the MEA to landing."

Alles klar?

 

[JasonM]

I was trying to say, "You can still file as your required alternate either (an airport with no approaches you can fly) or (an airport with no approaches not marked A-NA) if the forecast weather for your time of arrival there will allow descent under VFR from the MEA to landing."

Alles klar?

Honestly.. Maybe my head is a little slow today. I understand what is green below.

You can still file as your required alternate either (an airport with no approaches you can fly) or (an airport with no approaches not marked A-NA) if the forecast weather for your time of arrival there will allow descent under VFR from the MEA to landing.

no approaches not marked A-NA..

- an airport with approaches but without the A-N/A tag?

EDIT::: Are you saying. An airport without approaches as long as it is not marked A-N/A???

 

[dtuuri]

You are assuming that you are not even going to try the approach at your destination and that is not always the case.

I do not assume that. Part 121 is a higher (more conservative) standard, so they're required to figure fuel burn by remaining at cruise altitude until over the destination (i/a/w the regs) whereas Part 91 pilots can rely on advertised fuel savings during the descent to the destination, requiring LESS fuel than the same flight under Part 121 for that segment.

The leg "to" the alternate requires a high fuel burn climb under Part 91 plus the 45 minutes of reserve, but no more skimping again on the burn by using descent consumption fuel burn rates at the alternate. Under Part 121, the skimpier descent fuel burn CAN be used at the furthest alternate, since that's where the approach and landing language applies, IIRC. It's also where the aircraft will be the absolute lightest and the ensuing climb/45 minute reserve will result in the least fuel burn and least tankering of heavy fuel, fuel that most all the time is not needed.

Either way, Part 91 or 121, that's two climbs to altitude--the more fuel-efficient regulatory requirement being Part 121.

Enter the Chief Counsel opinion, and now there's three climbs, burning gobs more fuel and tankering it around all the time too.

When I worked at EJA and at United Airlines, before these opinions, the 45 minute reserve fuel was calculated at cruise altitude with no consideration of the fuel required to climb there. I always thought there should be more fuel than that, but the FAA had approved their procedures.

To me, the phrase "fly to the airport" means that you fly at least to the point where you land or do a missed approach. It doesn't merely mean fly overhead.

Part 91 distinquishes between "flying to" and "completing the landing at". Why would they do that if they both mean the same thing? But you're correct in the sense that the Chief Counsel has decreed that it be that way.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

Honestly.. Maybe my head is a little slow today. I understand what is green below.

You can still file as your required alternate either (an airport with no approaches you can fly) or (an airport with no approaches not marked A-NA) if the forecast weather for your time of arrival there will allow descent under VFR from the MEA to landing.

no approaches not marked A-NA..

- an airport with approaches but without the A-N/A tag?

EDIT::: Are you saying. An airport without approaches as long as it is not marked A-N/A???

No, I'm saying you can file as your required alternate an airport where all the approaches are marked A-NA if the forecast weather at predicted time of arrival is VFR from the MEA down to landing.

 

[JasonM]

No, I'm saying you can file as your required alternate an airport where all the approaches are marked A-NA if the forecast weather at predicted time of arrival is VFR from the MEA down to landing.

ahh.. Well, why didn't you just say so. Got it. Thanks!

 

[John Collins]

85

I really appreciate everyones help here. I guess my thinking was not having VFR for the alternate. I need to remember that as always being an option.

Your definition here is a little hard for me to understand. what is fly/no? == "You can still use an airport with no approaches you can fly/no approaches not marked A-NA" Are you saying I cannot fly any approaches marked A-N/A? If so, why couldn't I fly a N/A approach if the conditions were forecasting VFR?

Remember, the alternate rules only apply for planning and filing purposes and have nothing to do with what you do once you are underway, with the only possible exception of the lost communication rules. Once you are underway, any approach at any airport is permitted if you have the suitable equipment to fly it. The filing requirements do not affect any minimums either. They are primarily there to make sure that before you launch, you have sufficient fuel to conduct your flight and if needed make it to a suitable alternate that has a good possibility of being satisfactorily completed.

In real life, too much changes during the flight to be wed to your original plan. Constantly re-evaluate as you go. I read a report on a pilot that knew his destination weather had deteriorated as he continued on his route and the alternate was going in the same direction. He passed up numerous airports that were within 50 NM of his route and that were VFR. He ended up not completing the approach at the destination and there was no alternate within his remaining fuel. He crashed after running out of fuel, fatal results. Remember, the weather is always clear on the day of the funeral.

 

[Everskyward]

I do not assume that. Part 121 is a higher (more conservative) standard, so they're required to figure fuel burn by remaining at cruise altitude until over the destination (i/a/w the regs) whereas Part 91 pilots can rely on advertised fuel savings during the descent to the destination, requiring LESS fuel than the same flight under Part 121 for that segment.

I don't fly 121 but I looked up the reg. There are many regs concerning fuel supply but this is the one for domestic operations.

§121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel—

(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;

(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and

(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.

They use the same "to" verbiage for the original destination but include "land" at the alternate.

But reading further, there is another reg.

§121.647 Factors for computing fuel required.
Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:

(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.

(b) Anticipated traffic delays.

(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.

(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.

For the purposes of this section, required fuel is in addition to unusable fuel.

So I don't understand your statement about remaining at cruise altitude.

 

[JasonM]

Remember, the alternate rules only apply for planning and filing purposes and have nothing to do with what you do once you are underway, with the only possible exception of the lost communication rules. Once you are underway, any approach at any airport is permitted if you have the suitable equipment to fly it. The filing requirements do not affect any minimums either. They are primarily there to make sure that before you launch, you have sufficient fuel to conduct your flight and if needed make it to a suitable alternate that has a good possibility of being satisfactorily completed.

In real life, too much changes during the flight to be wed to your original plan. Constantly re-evaluate as you go. I read a report on a pilot that knew his destination weather had deteriorated as he continued on his route and the alternate was going in the same direction. He passed up numerous airports that were within 50 NM of his route and that were VFR. He ended up not completing the approach at the destination and there was no alternate within his remaining fuel. He crashed after running out of fuel, fatal results. Remember, the weather is always clear on the day of the funeral.

Thanks. That all makes perfect sense to me and is nice to hear my options may actually be more than what I had for planning. Opens the doors a little with a commonsense outlook.

 

[dtuuri]

I don't fly 121 but I looked up the reg. There are many regs concerning fuel supply but this is the one for domestic operations.

They use the same "to" verbiage for the original destination but include "land" at the alternate.

So then, I remembered correctly.

But reading further, there is another reg.

[(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.]​

So I don't understand your statement about remaining at cruise altitude.

Since the fuel burn by planning to remain at cruise altitude is higher than the descent, but since you will actually be descending--you'll save fuel over the planned amount. The savings will approximately equal any extra needed for the approach. As for the "possible missed approach", the rule says "Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:", then lists (c) above. Well, I just "considered" the approach fuel and I have enough more onboard to reach an alternate with a Part 121 reserve, so I've considered a missed approach too. It's easy to plan too, if you don't ever use the descent fuel burn charts out of conservatism.

That's Part 121 though. I'd be interested in the difference in Part 91 fuel required for your airplane figuring it both ways, mine vs. the Chief Counsel, say using an alternate 150 nm distant. The Chief Counsel, remember, makes the reserve fuel start at alternate field elevation, let's say sea level for simplicity. If you're game, that is.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

Since the fuel burn by planning to remain at cruise altitude is higher than the descent, but since you will actually be descending--you'll save fuel over the planned amount. The savings will approximately equal any extra needed for the approach. As for the "possible missed approach", the rule says "Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:", then lists (c) above. Well, I just "considered" the approach fuel and I have enough more onboard to reach an alternate with a Part 121 reserve, so I've considered a missed approach too. It's easy to plan too, if you don't ever use the descent fuel burn charts out of conservatism.

The reg I posted clearly says you are supposed to compute the fuel to do an approach and possible missed. To do that you would need to descend. What makes you think the fuel you saved during the descent will be approximately equal to that used during an approach and missed? Not to mention the fact that you will be slowing down, maneuvering on the approach and using a lot more flight time than if you stayed at altitude and simply overflew your first airport of intended landing.

That's Part 121 though. I'd be interested in the difference in Part 91 fuel required for your airplane figuring it both ways, mine vs. the Chief Counsel, say using an alternate 150 nm distant. The Chief Counsel, remember, makes the reserve fuel start at alternate field elevation, let's say sea level for simplicity. If you're game, that is.

Of course it's going to take more fuel to descend from altitude, shoot the approach, miss, then fly to the alternate than it would take to stay at cruise altitude, overfly the airport then fly to the same alternate. Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[dtuuri]

The reg I posted clearly says you are supposed to compute the fuel to do an approach and possible missed.

No, it says "consider" not "compute". It's an estimate. There's no way to "compute" such a thing. There may be standard assumptions in certain operations, or maybe historical data for certain airports, but I don't know how it can be computed.

What makes you think the fuel you saved during the descent will be approximately equal to that used during an approach and missed?

Try it and see. It doesn't need to include a missed approach and it won't.

Not to mention the fact that you will be slowing down,

That saves fuel, no?

...maneuvering on the approach and using a lot more flight time than if you stayed at altitude and simply overflew your first airport of intended landing.

The time doesn't matter, just the fuel. You've been making fuel ever since you throttled back for the descent, use that for maneuvering.

Of course it's going to take more fuel to descend from altitude, shoot the approach, miss, then fly to the alternate than it would take to stay at cruise altitude, overfly the airport then fly to the same alternate. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I think you are, yes. Under Part 91 the rule says nothing about missed approach or shooting an approach. It doesn't have to because it says you must have enough fuel to complete the landing at the destination. That would include the approach, but not the missed approach. You then need enough fuel to fly to the alternate, starting from field elevation, and THAT includes the missed approach and climb to altitude. Arriving OVER ("to") the alternate, you need another 45 minutes of normal cruise fuel. So, two climb fuel burns, under the rule. Three doesn't make any sense (talk about "common sense" ), but the Chief Counsel method results in three climb fuel burns: Departure, destination go-around and another at the alternate as part of the 45 minute reserve.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

No, it says "consider" not "compute". It's an estimate. There's no way to "compute" such a thing. There may be standard assumptions in certain operations, or maybe historical data for certain airports, but I don't know how it can be computed.

It actually does say "compute" and also "consider". What is does not say is "assume that the extra fuel used during maneuvering will be offset by the fuel saved during descent.

§121.647 Factors for computing fuel required.
Each person computing fuel required for the purposes of this subpart shall consider the following:

(a) Wind and other weather conditions forecast.

(b) Anticipated traffic delays.

(c) One instrument approach and possible missed approach at destination.

(d) Any other conditions that may delay landing of the aircraft.

For the purposes of this section, required fuel is in addition to unusable fuel.

Try it and see. It doesn't need to include a missed approach and it won't.

OK, tried below.

That saves fuel, no?

It might save in fuel burn per unit of time but you will be flying more time.

The time doesn't matter, just the fuel. You've been making fuel ever since you throttled back for the descent, use that for maneuvering.

As I said, how can you just assume the fuel "saved" during the descent is more than the fuel you will use for maneuvering?

I think you are, yes. Under Part 91 the rule says nothing about missed approach or shooting an approach. It doesn't have to because it says you must have enough fuel to complete the landing at the destination. That would include the approach, but not the missed approach.

The reg in part 91 says nothing about completing the landing at the destination. You are confusing that with the Part 121 rule. Even the 121 rule says nothing about completing the landing at the destination, only at the alternate.

My example which you wanted to see for the airplane I fly.

KSFO-KSEA to alternate KPDX, overflying KSEA without descending = 3467 lbs. (520 gals)

KSFO-KSEA to alternate KPDX low approach at KSEA (without even maneuvering to do a published approach) = 4243 lbs. (636 gals)

You can see that remaining at cruise altitude while overflying the destination airport is more efficient than descending and climbing back up to go to the alternate. So if you used the first method to compute the fuel you needed to carry you would be way off in the event that you had to do an approach at KSEA then continue to KPDX. In fact you would be about 30 minutes off since the difference in the fuel burn above is about 800 lbs. or about 30 minutes in that particular airplane. If you planned a 45 minute reserve that would leave you only 15 minutes.

I know that this is all just for planning, but the intent is to have you carry enough fuel to at least make it to some alternate with good enough weather if the weather at your destination goes down.

 

[dtuuri]

It actually does say "compute" and also "consider". What is does not say is "assume that the extra fuel used during maneuvering will be offset by the fuel saved during descent.

Ok, "computing" in context means adding up the estimates for wind, etc., but it doesn't mean there's a precise method for calculating the fuel used during an approach, which is the point I meant to make. The Instrument Flying Handbook uses 10 minutes of extra flying time in their examples, but that's not regulatory. As long as your considered estimate is a reasonable one it's legal.

It might save in fuel burn per unit of time but you will be flying more time.

Right, it's a trade-off.

As I said, how can you just assume the fuel "saved" during the climb is not less than the fuel you will use for maneuvering.

As an estimate, I'm suggesting (in the context of an old Lear) the fuel burns will be roughly the same for flight planning purposes. We used a Parker Pen that was 200 nm long, IIRC, to quickly measure the distance on an enroute chart, divided by the estimated groundspeed in miles per minute (six, seven, eight?) to find the flight time in minutes then used thumb rule fuel burns for each hour (which didn't include descents or approaches, but included the climb) to "compute" the fuel to destination. Repeat for the alternate, then add a standard 45 minute reserve at cruise altitude. It was quick and accurate enough. As you know, early Lears don't have any room for error, so if that procedure wasn't working out we wouldn't have done it.

The reg in part 91 says nothing about completing the landing at the destination. You are confusing that with the Part 121 rule. Even the 121 rule says nothing about completing the landing at the destination, only at the alternate.

This doesn't mean completing the landing?

§91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to—

(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
​

My example which you wanted to see for the airplane I fly.

KSFO-KSEA to alternate KPDX, overflying KSEA without descending = 3467 lbs. (520 gals)

That's not what I've been describing. Here's how I'd do it:

KSFO-KSEA without descending. KSEA to KPDX (from takeoff elevation and without descending, ie, from "first hour" fuel burn rate), then add 45 minutes of reserve at cruise altitude (no climb included).

KSFO-KSEA to alternate KPDX low approach at KSEA (without even maneuvering to do a published approach) = 4243 lbs. (636 gals)

You haven't added the "third climb" required by the Chief Counsel. It's in the reserve 45 minutes from KPDX starting at field elevation.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

That's not what I've been describing. Here's how I'd do it:

KSFO-KSEA without descending. KSEA to KPDX (from takeoff elevation and without descending, ie, from "first hour" fuel burn rate), then add 45 minutes of reserve at cruise altitude (no climb included).

That doesn't make any sense at all. How do you get from over KSEA at altitude to on the ground at KSEA? If the fuel burns turn out to be the same, what advantage are you realizing by using your method?

You haven't added the "third climb" required by the Chief Counsel. It's in the reserve 45 minutes from KPDX starting at field elevation.

I'm not sure where you are getting the "third climb" idea. The interpretation says that you need enough fuel to do the approach and land at the alternate. You don't need to do the missed approach at the alternate and climb back up to cruise altitude.

Your question appears to arise from the phrase in (a)(2) that states "fly from that airport to the alternate airport." The FAA has determined this phrase also includes fuel for approach and landing. To promote aviation safety, the FAA's rule assumes the pilot will attempt to land at the destination airport and then fly to the alternate for the ultimate conclusion of the safe flight. This reasonable scenario includes an approach at both the destination airport and at the flight's final landing at the alternate.

The FAA believes marginal weather conditions change rapidly. A pilot may start an approach to the destination airport with adequate minimum weather, but the weather may change and force a missed approach. Accordingly, the FAA rules require fuel for approaches at both the destination and alternate airports.

 

[Everskyward]

This doesn't mean completing the landing?

§91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to—

(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
​

I don't think it means completing the landing. It means completing the flight to the airport (the first airport of intended landing) then doing a missed approach and going to the alternate if an alternate is needed.

 

[dtuuri]

How do you get from over KSEA at altitude to on the ground at KSEA? If the fuel burns turn out to be the same, what advantage are you realizing by using your method?

This is a fuel planning exercise not a real time flight. Be my guest if you want to use descent fuel charts, but then you need to add fuel for an approach. By using the enroute fuel burn you avoid the second step.

The "third climb" is irrelevant for the purpose of this comparison since you would do it (or not) in both cases.

Not so. I don't start from field elevation to calculate the reserve--you do, if you agree with the Chief Counsel (you do).

I don't think it means completing the landing. It means completing the flight to the airport (the first airport of intended landing)...

Whatever.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

This is a fuel planning exercise not a real time flight. Be my guest if you want to use descent fuel charts, but then you need to add fuel for an approach. By using the enroute fuel burn you avoid the second step.

This is 2014. Descent charts? I use a computer program. It's actually just as easy to compute the flight from takeoff to landing or missed approach than to compute it to overhead the airport. Besides, your method might have worked for the airplane you flew but there is no guarantee it works for all airplanes.

Not so. I don't start from field elevation to calculate the reserve--you do, if you agree with the Chief Counsel (you do).

I'm still not seeing what you mean by "third climb". Look at my edited post #64 above.

 

[flyingron]

I don't think it means completing the landing. It means completing the flight to the airport (the first airport of intended landing) then doing a missed approach and going to the alternate if an alternate is needed.

Flights are defined as takeoff to landing (and may include multiples of these).

From point A in the air to point B in the air is not a flight.

I never fuel plan for a descent because it's going to be less than if I flew at cruise power to the destination (and even then the difference is negligable).

The only time this makes a whole lot of a difference is that if the only IAF available for your approach is way on the opposite side of the airport from where you're coming from. I'd certainly plan for the extra 20-30 minutes of flying time that would entail.

 

[Everskyward]

Flights are defined as takeoff to landing (and may include multiples of there).

From point A in the air to point B in the air is not a flight.

But for the purpose of that regulation you are not going to land and then continue to your alternate. It's a moot point anyway since the amount of fuel used between the missed approach point and the ground is negligible.

 

[flyingron]

But for the purpose of that regulation you are not going to land and then continue to your alternate. It's a moot point anyway since the amount of fuel used between the missed approach point and the ground in negligible.

The regulation doesn't say you have to land (or you're going to land) it says you need to have the fuel REQUIRED FOR THE FLIGHT to the destination. As John King says...that's a good thing, I always like to have enough fuel to make it to my destination. To that you add the fuel to the alternate plus 45 at normal cruise. It doesn't say "plan a flight to the MAP, go missed to the alternate, fly around for 45 minutse and land." If it wanted that, it would be worded like that.

Like I said, the only time this hair splitting would seem to make any difference, is that if the approach you are likely to use involves a bit more flying that just getting to the airport.

 

[Everskyward]

The regulation doesn't say you have to land (or you're going to land) it says you need to have the fuel REQUIRED FOR THE FLIGHT to the destination. As John King says...that's a good thing, I always like to have enough fuel to make it to my destination. To that you add the fuel to the alternate plus 45 at normal cruise. It doesn't say "plan a flight to the MAP, go missed to the alternate, fly around for 45 minutse and land." If it wanted that, it would be worded like that.

Like I said, the only time this hair splitting would seem to make any difference, is that if the approach you are likely to use involves a bit more flying that just getting to the airport.

I'm not sure that we are disagreeing. You need to have enough fuel to get to your destination, including doing the approach, then enough to get to the alternate (if required), do the approach and landing there, plus 45 minutes. I'm not sure where dtuuri is getting the "third climb" though.

 

[dtuuri]

This is 2014. Descent charts? I use a computer program.

Oh Yeah? While you're still pre-flighting your database I'll be sipping coffee and munching a donut at FL410.

It's actually just as easy to compute the flight from takeoff to landing or missed approach than to compute it to overhead the airport.

I doubt it, see the above.

Besides, your method might have worked for the airplane you flew but there is no guarantee it works for all airplanes.

I gave a caveat and besides, that's why I'm interested in your airplane.

I'm still not seeing what you mean by "third climb". Look at my edited post #64 above.

You wrote, "You don't need to do the missed approach at the alternate and climb back up to cruise altitude." Again:

§91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to—

(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.​

If you and the Chief Counsel are telling me you need to carry enough fuel for BOTH approaches, destination and alternate (you are, see Gallagher), how do you achieve 45 minutes of reserve after the approach unless you climb? That's the problem with their thinking. They didn't view alternate fuel as "radius of action". Like naive student pilots, they assumed you'd actually go there and land without regard for the fuel consequence to comply with what I refer to as the "after that" fuel (reserve).

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

I'm not sure that we are disagreeing.

Keep trying, I'm sure you'll find a way.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

Oh Yeah? While you're still pre-flighting your database I'll be sipping coffee and munching a donut at FL410.

Huh? I did the calculations in about 5 minutes on the computer.

I gave a caveat and besides, that's why I'm interested in your airplane.

For the airplane I fly, KSFO to KSEA landing at KSEA takes 3216 lbs. From KSFO to KSEA overhead takes 3237 lbs. So yes, they are similar fuel burns, but as I said, that doesn't mean it will work for all airplanes.

You wrote, "You don't need to do the missed approach at the alternate and climb back up to cruise altitude." Again:

§91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to—

(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.​

If you and the Chief Counsel are telling me you need to carry enough fuel for BOTH approaches, destination and alternate (you are, see Gallagher), how do you achieve 45 minutes of reserve after the approach unless you climb? That's the problem with their thinking. They didn't view alternate fuel as "radius of action". Like naive student pilots, they assumed you'd actually go there and land without regard for the fuel consequence to comply with what I refer to as the "after that" fuel (reserve).

Did you read the highlighted part of the interpretation? I'll post it again.

Your question appears to arise from the phrase in (a)(2) that states "fly from that airport to the alternate airport." The FAA has determined this phrase also includes fuel for approach and landing. To promote aviation safety, the FAA's rule assumes the pilot will attempt to land at the destination airport and then fly to the alternate for the ultimate conclusion of the safe flight. This reasonable scenario includes an approach at both the destination airport and at the flight's final landing at the alternate.

The FAA believes marginal weather conditions change rapidly. A pilot may start an approach to the destination airport with adequate minimum weather, but the weather may change and force a missed approach. Accordingly, the FAA rules require fuel for approaches at both the destination and alternate airports.

It says "final landing at the alternate" not "missed approach at the alternate". Since this is just a fuel planning requirement they also want you to have planned that extra 45 minute reserve in case you might have had to use some of it at some point.

 

[dtuuri]

For the airplane I fly, KSFO to KSEA landing at KSEA takes 3216 lbs. From KSFO to KSEA overhead takes 3237 lbs. So yes, they are similar fuel burns, but as I said, that doesn't mean it will work for all airplanes.

I'll accept "most airplanes".

Did you read the highlighted part of the interpretation? I'll post it again.

It says "final landing at the alternate" not "missed approach at the alternate". Since this is just a fuel planning requirement they also want you to have planned that extra 45 minute reserve in case you might have had to use some of it at some point.

The 45 minutes is after the alternate by regulation. If you aren't including a climb from field elevation you aren't in compliance with the regulation the Chief Counsel quoted. They did not address the "after that" fuel, which is the fallacy in their interpretation. Flying "to" the alternate leaves you at altitude for figuring the reserve. "Approach and landing" at the alternate leaves you at its field elevation.

With that, I've got to go fix a lawn mower, bye. :wink2:

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

The 45 minutes is after the alternate by regulation. If you aren't including a climb from field elevation you aren't in compliance with the regulation the Chief Counsel quoted. They did not address the "after that" fuel, which is the fallacy in their interpretation. Flying "to" the alternate leaves you at altitude for figuring the reserve. "Approach and landing" at the alternate leaves you at its field elevation.

If they wanted you to compute a climb back to cruise altitude they would have said so. As it is, the reserve fuel is just an amount based on 45 minutes at normal cruise.

 

[dtuuri]

If they wanted you to compute a climb back to cruise altitude they would have said so.

That's the rule, 45 minutes "after that" flight to the alternate.

As it is, the reserve fuel is just an amount based on 45 minutes at normal cruise.

That won't last but 20 minutes if the runway is closed. Does the Chief Counsel think that's enough?

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

That's the rule, 45 minutes "after that" flight to the alternate.

45 minutes of fuel at normal cruise. If they intended you to figure a climb some of that 45 minutes would be at climb power not at normal cruise. As others have mentioned, these are the minimum fuel amounts for planning purposes only. And they are the minimums, no one says you can't add more.

That won't last but 20 minutes if the runway is closed. Does the Chief Counsel think that's enough?

If you don't think that's enough fuel for you then add more. In fact maybe you should add the amount of fuel for normal cruise at some lower altitude. The reg doesn't specify any particular altitude. I know you are thinking in terms of the old Lears where the fuel burn at altitude is much less than at sea level.

 

[dtuuri]

45 minutes of fuel at normal cruise. If they intended you to figure a climb some of that 45 minutes would be at climb power not at normal cruise.

It's the interpretation that leaves you scrambling to fill in the blanks. You are, in fact, borrowing MY understanding of the plain language and trying to say it fits with yours (it doesn't). I'm the one who points out the rule says "to" the alternate which leaves you at cruise altitude for the reserve. You and the Chief Counsel start the "after that" fuel after the approach at the alternate, then YOU casually disregard the "after that" language. You know good and well the Chief Counsel wouldn't accept less than 45 minutes, given their mindset in Gallagher. Therefore, you aren't really compliant with their interpretation at all and are planning your flights with even less fuel than my (correct) system calculates.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

It's the interpretation that leaves you scrambling to fill in the blanks. You are, in fact, borrowing MY understanding of the plain language and trying to say it fits with yours (it doesn't). I'm the one who points out the rule says "to" the alternate which leaves you at cruise altitude for the reserve.

You are using creative and unrealistic flight planning to get out of a climb requirement which doesn't exist. What good is being at cruise altitude when you get to the alternate?

You and the Chief Counsel start the "after that" fuel after the approach at the alternate, then YOU casually disregard the "after that" language. You know good and well the Chief Counsel wouldn't accept less than 45 minutes, given their mindset in Gallagher. Therefore, you aren't really compliant with their interpretation at all and are planning your flights with even less fuel than my (correct) system calculates.

I'm not disregarding the "after that" language. We disagree on the climb requirement. The reg says the reserve fuel has to be 45 minutes at normal cruise. It says nothing about climbing. Actually "normal cruise" can be interpreted in a number of ways, especially for airplanes with significantly different fuel burns at different altitudes since the reg does not specify an altitude. And please DON'T ANYONE ASK FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THIS. It's also just a planning number. If you truly missed the approach at your alternate you're not going to be flying around in normal cruise. You would use either max range or max endurance depending on where your next option was.