Filing IFR question

[jdwatkins]

When filing IFR flight plan to a small airport w/ no legal flyable apprch. (gps only and no legal gps equip.) expecting vfr conditions.
Do I simply file an alternate w/ legal apprch?

 

[poadeleted20]

First, the regs say that an alternate is always required unless your destination has both:
1. An approach you can fly with what you've got (the last part being implied, but pretty obvious), and
2. The "1-2-3" weather.

So, in your case, regardless of the weather, criterion 1 is not met, which means you can't skip filing an alternate. Regarding your alternate, the regs say it must have either:
1. A precision approach and either 600-2 or the published nonstandard mins for that particular approach, or
2. A nonprecision approach and either 800-2 or the published nonstandard mins for that particular approach, or
3. VFR weather from the MEA down to the alternate airport.

So, your alternate doesn't have to have a published approach, but if it doesn't, the weather there has to be pretty good, since the cloud bases will have to be at least 500 above the MEA to allow you to be legal VFR at the MEA.

 

[flyingron]

And legalities aside. Pick a sane alternate (and have fuel to get there). When flying into NC26 (no approach), I can pick SVH (5NM away) as an alternate legally (as long as SVH has 600-2).
However if I was going into SVH originally, my nearest legal alternate would be RUQ about 20 miles away (provided they have the weather).

I typically plan and file CLT or GSO as the alternate anyhow. Not only does it give me more fuel flexibility if the fertilizer does hit the ventilator, those airports have nice approaches, large runways, very bright approach/runway lights, and excellent accomodations (rental cars, etc...).

 

[skidoo]

First, the regs say that an alternate is always required unless your destination has both:
1. An approach you can fly with what you've got (the last part being implied, but pretty obvious), and
2. The "1-2-3" weather.

So, in your case, regardless of the weather, criterion 1 is not met, which means you can't skip filing an alternate. Regarding your alternate, the regs say it must have either:
1. A precision approach and either 600-2 or the published nonstandard mins for that particular approach, or
2. A nonprecision approach and either 800-2 or the published nonstandard mins for that particular approach, or
3. VFR weather from the MEA down to the alternate airport.

So, your alternate doesn't have to have a published approach, but if it doesn't, the weather there has to be pretty good, since the cloud bases will have to be at least 500 above the MEA to allow you to be legal VFR at the MEA.

This made me wonder about my home field. It has a non precision approach but the MDA is 1600 AGL. Obviously the 800-2 criteria would not work well for an actual approach, but would it be legal to use as an alternate if it was 1000-5. The approach chart doesn't say anything about no alternate use. Also, the field doesn't have automated weather reporting, and no official weather report. So, how would one determine if it was legal to list. Or is it automatically no alternate because of the lack of weather reporting? Is this approach for primary destination use only?

 

[poadeleted20]

And legalities aside. Pick a sane alternate (and have fuel to get there).

Amen! Remember that the filed alternate business is only a preflight planning exercise, and may have no bearing at all on what your options may really be when you get to your destination.

 

[poadeleted20]

This made me wonder about my home field. It has a non precision approach but the MDA is 1600 AGL. Obviously the 800-2 criteria would not work well for an actual approach, but would it be legal to use as an alternate if it was 1000-5. The approach chart doesn't say anything about no alternate use. Also, the field doesn't have automated weather reporting, and no official weather report. So, how would one determine if it was legal to list. Or is it automatically no alternate because of the lack of weather reporting? Is this approach for primary destination use only?

Are you sure there is no triangle-A on the chart? What airport is that?

 

[cirrusmx]

Always file an alternate, never hurts and its good practice. DOESNT COST MONEY.

 

[roncachamp]

Always file an alternate, never hurts and its good practice. DOESNT COST MONEY.

That may be true, but what is the benefit in it?

 

[azure]

Always file an alternate, never hurts and its good practice. DOESNT COST MONEY.

I can see good reason to always HAVE an alternate, but why file one if there's no need legally? As I learned recently, ATC never sees it and the only reason to have it on file is to cover yourself in case of a "deal".

 

[douglas393]

That may be true, but what is the benefit in it?

For me, because you never know when you may need an alternate and being prepared with an already decided plan B for which you have prepard for in terms of charts and familiarity, may take some of the stress off a potentially stessful situation(going missed). From what I understand, your alternate is not written in stone, so even if you declare it does not mean you have to use it if you need an alternate.

 

[roncachamp]

For me, because you never know when you may need an alternate and being prepared with an already decided plan B for which you have prepard for in terms of charts and familiarity, may take some of the stress off a potentially stessful situation(going missed). From what I understand, your alternate is not written in stone, so even if you declare it does not mean you have to use it if you need an alternate.

So is the stress relieved by the filing of the alternate, or the process involved in determining it?

 

[cirrusmx]

you guys are making a big deal of something that doesnt hurt and takes 30 seconds to think about. FILE A FREAKING ALTERNATE.

 

[JHW]

you guys are making a big deal of something that doesnt hurt and takes 30 seconds to think about. FILE A FREAKING ALTERNATE.

Or don't. I never file an alternate unless it's required. I don't like the idea of pre-determined plan B's, it has a tendency to bias decisions in changed circumstances. That's a decision to be made based on the conditions at the time and place you need it. If something is not legally required and serves no practical purpose, why do it ?

 

[flyingron]

Or don't. I never file an alternate unless it's required. I don't like the idea of pre-determined plan B's, it has a tendency to bias decisions in changed circumstances. That's a decision to be made based on the conditions at the time and place you need it. If something is not legally required and serves no practical purpose, why do it ?

Well, except for the fact that not at least considering one before flight violates the rules for even VFR flight. 91.103.

 

[douglas393]

All because you file an alternate does not mean you have to use it. As others have said ATC does not see it, and even if they did you are not obligated to use it. For me the reason to file it is so that I am ready to use it if I need it. In reality, filing has nothing to do with the preparation, as much as it is a checklist like process for me. By filing it, it reminds me to pull the approach plates(yeah I still use paper plates, even with my G1000, 796, and Ipad--sorry, its just the way I was trained) and thus it I go missed I have already determined in my mind what I plan on doing and have what I need to do it available at my fingertips(on my yoke, but you get the idea). It also reminds me to check the weather there prior to taking off as well.

Does filing decrease the "stress" of going missed, I do not know, having yet gone missed except in practice, but intuitively(which is not always the case) I suspect having that information available and at hand will cause less stress to be added and certainly decrease my cockpit workload.

Doug

 

[roncachamp]

Or don't. I never file an alternate unless it's required.

Anybody know the penalty for not filing an alternate when one is required?

I don't like the idea of pre-determined plan B's, it has a tendency to bias decisions in changed circumstances.

The filed alternate does not pre-determine anything.

That's a decision to be made based on the conditions at the time and place you need it. If something is not legally required and serves no practical purpose, why do it ?

Why make something a legal requirement that serves no practical purpose?

 

[poadeleted20]

Anybody know the penalty for not filing an alternate when one is required?

According to FAA Order 2150.3B, a 30-90 day suspension. In any event, the FAA's one and only purpose with this rule is to force pilots to carry enough fuel to have some options if the weather turns to crap, because history tells us that too many pilots will not unless someone orders them to do so.

 

[gismo]

Anybody know the penalty for not filing an alternate when one is required?

In the worst case, it's running out of fuel before landing.

The filed alternate does not pre-determine anything.

Well, done properly it pre-determines that you've got a better than even chance of making it to an airport if the destination wx goes in the toilet and for some reason that doesn't happen at the alternate.

Why make something a legal requirement that serves no practical purpose?

You work for the FAA and you have to ask that????

 

[roncachamp]

In the worst case, it's running out of fuel before landing.

How does the filing of an alternate affect fuel consumption?

Well, done properly it pre-determines that you've got a better than even chance of making it to an airport if the destination wx goes in the toilet and for some reason that doesn't happen at the alternate.

Please explain how.

You work for the FAA and you have to ask that????

Did I miss an agency-wide memo?

 

[roncachamp]

According to FAA Order 2150.3B, a 30-90 day suspension.

And according to practice?

In any event, the FAA's one and only purpose with this rule is to force pilots to carry enough fuel to have some options if the weather turns to crap, because history tells us that too many pilots will not unless someone orders them to do so.

How does filing an alternate force pilots to carry more fuel?

 

[taters]

If you dont file an alternate when one was required you will get some time on the beach...just ask a few guys at my airline who got violated hard for this last year when the FAA auidted some releases...

 

[poadeleted20]

How does filing an alternate force pilots to carry more fuel?

I guess you're right -- the FAA isn't out there making sure pilots are really putting the legally required fuel in their planes, so I guess pilots could file an alternate but not actually carry the required alternate fuel and lie about now much fuel they are carrying in that block of the flight plan. But by that standard, they could just skip filing the legally required alternate, too, so I suppose we should just do away with all those regs because nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to ensure compliance every time they fly.

But what I said really is the FAA's reason for the rules on alternates and required fuel.

 

[Jim_R]

How does filing an alternate force pilots to carry more fuel?

According to the FAR,

Sec. 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.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; and
(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following:
(i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.

So...if conditions are met such that I don't have to legally file an alternate, but I file an alternate anyway, then I need to include fuel onboard to fly from my primary destination to my alternate. If I didn't file an alternate, I wouldn't legally have to carry that extra fuel.

In that sense, filing an alternate could cost money (since heavier planes could burn more fuel per hour than lighter planes, depending on how the weight is distributed and the resulting cruise configuration).

 

[gismo]

How does the filing of an alternate affect fuel consumption?

We both know it doesn't do that, nor does filing one preclude running short. But you asked what the "penalty" might be and I was just pointing out that for someone who didn't file one when they should have and didn't bother to fuel plan accordingly the consequence (i.e. "penalty) could be an off airport landing in IMC. Something similar happened to a good friend of mine and he paid for it with his life. Certainly you can fail to include an alternate on your filed plan and still have the fuel to get to one and it's also possible but somewhat less likely to file one and still not have the fuel. But given that the additional effort required to file one after planning correctly vs the opposite I'd expect a fairly decent correlation between pilots not filing one when they should and not doing the fuel planning as well.

And before you crank up your usual well thought out cynical response, keep in mind that my first reply to you was made in jest with plenty of sarcasm aimed at the rather ludicrous notion that filing an alternate by itself actually accomplishes anything more than meeting some FAR.

Please explain how.

That statement only makes sense if you consider "done properly" to include an accurate assessment of the pending weather and your fuel requirements plus a bit of luck with the weather guesses.

Did I miss an agency-wide memo?

No doubt you just misinterpreted it. It was probably as unclear as some of the other garbage that comes from the agency.

 

[gismo]

I guess you're right -- the FAA isn't out there making sure pilots are really putting the legally required fuel in their planes, so I guess pilots could file an alternate but not actually carry the required alternate fuel and lie about now much fuel they are carrying in that block of the flight plan. But by that standard, they could just skip filing the legally required alternate, too, so I suppose we should just do away with all those regs because nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head to ensure compliance every time they fly.

But what I said really is the FAA's reason for the rules on alternates and required fuel.

Seems to me that if the regs simply required pilots to compute and depart with the appropriate amount of fuel without compelling them to list the alternate they used for said planning, it would be just as effective albeit slightly harder to enforce.

 

[poadeleted20]

Seems to me that if the regs simply required pilots to compute and depart with the appropriate amount of fuel without compelling them to list the alternate they used for said planning, it would be just as effective albeit slightly harder to enforce.

Exactly -- how does the FAA define "appropriate" before the ALJ. No doubt the reg as written is the result of being unable to nail down a case due to lack of an objective standard. Hence, the objective standard now in place.