Holding question

[midlifeflyer]

Indeed, flight time conditions may vary. However, the alternate is assigned based on the expected conditions in the alternate - again, it is not a guesswork but the analysis of TAF.

Are we speaking of the same analysis that led to you to into the stormy area just at the "right" time to get stuck in a hold?

Clearly there's an operational disagreement on this. I'll stick with making the decision at the time of the problem based on the information I have then, not the information I put on a piece of paper hours ago.

 

[azure]

Maybe it's just me, but I would like to know where you are going if you lost comm in imc.
Is that unreasonable?

So what are you asking for? That proceeding to your filed alternate should be made part of the standard lost comms procedure? If that ever came up for an NPRM, I'd say not just no, but hell no. Too many pilots, afraid of the "E" word, would dutifully obey, and waste precious fuel in the process, even if current conditions at their filed alternate were 0/0. There would be no net safety benefit, and in the end, it might be a (small) hit to at least GA's safety record.

You're obviously an experienced pilot, so I'm assuming that I'm misreading you but it's starting to sound as if you don't realize that as long as you're on radar, it doesn't really matter whether they know in advance where you're going, they'll find out soon enough. In a non-radar environment, things would be very different, and obviously they'd have to clear a lot more airspace to protect you. I'm not sure how that's handled in a real-life situation.

 

[Kritchlow]

I'll try to sum up to all the replies...

I don't really disagree with any of you, even though I may opt to handle the situation a bit differently. The point is that there is no exact right or totally wrong way to handle the situation.

My whole point from the beginning revolved around this basic question...
If the alternate filed in the flight plan is not known to ATC, and you never intend to actually use it, than why do we put it in the flight plan in the first place?

Remember.. If you go out of your way to chase down a closer airport with good weather, then you arrive only to see the weather go down, you may now not make your ace in the hole alternate.
Granted, in these days of current forecasts being uploaded to the cockpit make that less likely, but not everyone has onboard wx capability beyond an atis. Sure you can call FSS, but that's not always practical single pilot in the weather when your busy setting up approaches.

 

[azure]

My whole point from the beginning revolved around this basic question...
If the alternate filed in the flight plan is not known to ATC, and you never intend to actually use it, than why do we put it in the flight plan in the first place?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "never intend to use it", but basically, we put it in to cover our butts so that, if something happens and the feds start investigating, at least we did our due diligence and made sure we had a viable Plan B airport within fuel range, counting legal reserves.

Remember.. If you go out of your way to chase down a closer airport with good weather, then you arrive only to see the weather go down, you may now not make your ace in the hole alternate.

True - and if I had NO updated weather information since my pre-flight briefing, I'd probably go to my alternate. As I said, I wouldn't say that I never intended to use it, just that I'm not committed to that plan, and that ATC knows it and will handle the situation with that knowledge in mind. As you said in the part below that I cut, most IFR aircraft today have lots of ways of getting weather info en-route, so I'm not likely to ever be in that position.

 

[midlifeflyer]

True - and if I had NO updated weather information since my pre-flight briefing, I'd probably go to my alternate.

Even without on-board weather, it would usually take intentionally ignoring one's surroundings to have NO updated information since one's pre-flight briefing. In that case, any decision made is suspect.

 

[poadeleted20]

What is the purpose to file an alternate?? I understand the purpose to have an alternate, but why file it unless it's to communicate where you will go? It just doesn't make any logical sense.

It is, as stated repeatedly above, to force you to carry enough fuel to have a reasonable array of options if something goes bad at your destination. And that's all!

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe it's just me, but I would like to know where you are going if you lost comm in imc.
Is that unreasonable?

Yes, I think it is. Unless you can devise an ESP receptor system so ATC can read your mind in real time, I think that's an unreasonable hope. There are just too many reasons why flying to an alternate filed on the basis of information which may be more than a day and a half old by the time you reach your destination might be a really wrong choice, and that's why the regulations don't require it and no FAA guidance suggests it.

 

[poadeleted20]

When you plan your flight, you are obliged to check TAF for your departure aerodrome and if the weather is not within the 1000'/+2km limits +/- 1 hour at the time of your estimate arrival, you must file an alternate. There is no 24/36 hours, you have to know exactly what you are doing - otherwise your IFR become a russian roulette - only the latter gives you more chances for survival.

The data on which was based the forecast on you based your choice of alternate may be more than 36 hours old by the time you reach your filed alternate. It would be a really bad idea to require pilots to make real-time diversion decisions based on forecasts based on weather data that old.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, my point is you can check wx and plan and fuel all the alternates you want. But why put them in the flight plan?

Because the FAA has learned through bad experience that if they don't force pilots to do it that way, some of them will weasel their way into flying without enough fuel to ensure enough options to achieve the desired level of safety.

 

[poadeleted20]

Indeed, flight time conditions may vary. However, the alternate is assigned based on the expected conditions in the alternate - again, it is not a guesswork but the analysis of TAF.

And the TAF may be more than 36 hours old by the time you get to your alternate, and that TAF will be based on data even older than that. OTOH, you might well have real-time weather information showing your alternate had gone in the dumper and some place else forecast below mins back when you were filing is now CAVU (sorry -- for you younger pilots, that's "P6SM CLR" :wink2. And that's why the filed alternate is just a planning exercise forcing you to carry enough fuel to have options, not a mandatory diversion location.

 

[poadeleted20]

My whole point from the beginning revolved around this basic question...
If the alternate filed in the flight plan is not known to ATC, and you never intend to actually use it, than why do we put it in the flight plan in the first place?

To prove you went through the process in a way which can be demonstrated and reconstructed later.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To prove you went through the process in a way which can be demonstrated and reconstructed later.

Yeah, that was my guess also.

Might have been something that happened to lead to that since there are lots of things we are required to do when planning an IFR flight that do not go into the filed flight plan. Might not even have been in the US since it is an ICAO requirement as well.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Because the FAA has learned through bad experience that if they don't force pilots to do it that way, some of them will weasel their way into flying without enough fuel to ensure enough options to achieve the desired level of safety.

Na....they'll always continue to run them outta gas.

 

[John Collins]

Just looked at a few flightplans from yesterday that had alternates filed. I am able to look at the exact message sent to the ATC ERAM computer. The NAS flightplan message does not include the alternate airport. The ICAO flightplan does include the alternate information, in fact it provides for up to two alternates, a primary alternate and a secondary alternate. This doesn't change any expectation with respect to the alternate use under the lost com situation nor is there any requirement to stick with the destination or the alternate.

From my discussion with many controllers, what they really want is for the pilot to get safely on the ground as soon as possible. Plans are plans. Based on actual updated conditions or known conditions, any prudent pilot will modify their plan with the new information. There was a fatal accident which involved an aircraft eventually running out of fuel because the weather at both the destination and the alternate deteriorated to below minimums. This was not a lost com situation. The pilot flew on to his destination with widespread IFR below minimums, while he bypassed VFR airports just 50 miles to the north of much of his route.

 

[poadeleted20]

Na....they'll always continue to run them outta gas.

Perhaps, but if it's due to this issue, they'll do it in a way in which there will be the necessary documentation for the FAA to take enforcement action against them, and that will either change their ways or end their legal flying career.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just looked at a few flightplans from yesterday that had alternates filed. I am able to look at the exact message sent to the ATC ERAM computer. The NAS flightplan message does not include the alternate airport. The ICAO flightplan does include the alternate information, in fact it provides for up to two alternates, a primary alternate and a secondary alternate. This doesn't change any expectation with respect to the alternate use under the lost com situation nor is there any requirement to stick with the destination or the alternate.

From my discussion with many controllers, what they really want is for the pilot to get safely on the ground as soon as possible. Plans are plans. Based on actual updated conditions or known conditions, any prudent pilot will modify their plan with the new information. There was a fatal accident which involved an aircraft eventually running out of fuel because the weather at both the destination and the alternate deteriorated to below minimums. This was not a lost com situation. The pilot flew on to his destination with widespread IFR below minimums, while he bypassed VFR airports just 50 miles to the north of much of his route.

And THAT is the bottom line.

 

[Kritchlow]

And THAT is the bottom line.

Really?? Well obviously the fuel he calculated in his flight plan was just as erroneous as a phony alternate.
Plus... You just can't beat stupid.


On a different note, all our flight plans are of the ICAO. I thought most were now, but perhaps not.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Really?? Well obviously the fuel he calculated in his flight plan was just as erroneous as a phony alternate.
Plus... You just can't beat stupid.


On a different note, all our flight plans are of the ICAO. I thought most were now, but perhaps not.

I guess you missed John's point. Nothing wrong with the fuel calculations. Nothing wrong with the alternate except an insistence to go there when, in real time, there were not only better choices, but his filed alternate had become a bad one.

Stupid? Maybe. Maybe he just thought you are supposed to go to the alternate, a position clearly taken by some pilots in this thread.

 

[John Collins]

On a different note, all our flight plans are of the ICAO. I thought most were now, but perhaps not.

For the file service I looked at, yesterday there were 2500 flightplans filed, 150 were using ICAO format.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Perhaps, but if it's due to this issue, they'll do it in a way in which there will be the necessary documentation for the FAA to take enforcement action against them, and that will either change their ways or end their legal flying career.

now that's a warm comforting thought.....

 

[genna]

Boy, am I glad I asked .

I am just studying for my IFR. Situations like these are not really discussed anywhere and frankly, I thought there were more meaning to the altrnate than just a regulatory calculation for no purpose other than a potential plan B.

Now I know better. Thanks everyone.

 

[RotorDude]

For the file service I looked at, yesterday there were 2500 flightplans filed, 150 were using ICAO format.

My understanding is that all international ones are ICAO now, and soon (November?) domestic too.

 

[Kritchlow]

My understanding is that all international ones are ICAO now, and soon (November?) domestic too.

Yeah... I also thought there was a transition taking place, I just thought it was further along. I know fltplan.com started making the transition several years ago.

 

[poadeleted20]

I am just studying for my IFR. Situations like these are not really discussed anywhere and frankly, I thought there were more meaning to the altrnate than just a regulatory calculation for no purpose other than a potential plan B.

Now I know better. Thanks everyone.

You were right the first time. What I'm not sure is what better you know about it now.

 

[John Collins]

My understanding is that all international ones are ICAO now, and soon (November?) domestic too.

I think October is the target to switch all domestic flightplans to ICAO. Not many have started the process. It should not be a big deal, but the sooner that pilots start filing with ICAO, the sooner they will figure out any differences.

 

[Kritchlow]

I think October is the target to switch all domestic flightplans to ICAO. Not many have started the process. It should not be a big deal, but the sooner that pilots start filing with ICAO, the sooner they will figure out any differences.

I'm not sure about other flight planning tools, but fltplan.cim you just set up your profile once, then you never know the difference.

 

[RotorDude]

I'm not sure about other flight planning tools, but fltplan.cim you just set up your profile once, then you never know the difference.

On LockMart they still have two forms, "Domestic" and "ICAO". They retain the profile data for both, so it's not a big deal either way. "ICAO" comes with a note that it is required for international flight. The label "Domestic" seems to suggest that, unless you know otherwise, it is the recommended form for domestic use.

 

[aterpster]

I think October is the target to switch all domestic flightplans to ICAO. Not many have started the process. It should not be a big deal, but the sooner that pilots start filing with ICAO, the sooner they will figure out any differences.

Does this mean I will also have to stop using sequence reports?

 

[Palmpilot]

Why is the pilot not expected to fly to alternate if nordo with below mins wx at destination?

One reason that it would not make sense for ATC to expect that is that even if the destination is below minimums, the aircraft could be in VFR conditions, or could encounter VFR conditions, and then 91.185(b) would require the pilot to "continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable." Depending on the current weather, that could PROHIBIT going to the filed alternate. Thus the goal of making a nordo pilot's actions predictable to ATC is simply not achievable.

I also think that allowing pilots to make inflight decisions based on current conditions is a greater safety benefit than would result from ATC's being able to predict a nordo pilot's actions.

 

[Kritchlow]

One reason that it would not make sense for ATC to expect that is that even if the destination is below minimums, the aircraft could be in VFR conditions, or could encounter VFR conditions, and then 91.185(b) would require the pilot to "continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable." Depending on the current weather, that could PROHIBIT going to the filed alternate. Thus the goal of making a nordo pilot's actions predictable to ATC is simply not achievable.

I also think that allowing pilots to make inflight decisions based on current conditions is a greater safety benefit than would result from ATC's being able to predict a nordo pilot's actions.

I get all that... It just sounds like everyone is saying the filed alternate is the LAST place you would go...

That said, I think it was John that did the legwork and found that in a few months (when all flight plans are icao), our alternates will be transmitted with the flight plan. I wonder why that would be...??

 

[Palmpilot]

I get all that... It just sounds like everyone is saying the filed alternate is the LAST place you would go...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no preference for or against flying to the filed alternate. For me, the decision would be based on which airport gave me the best chance of getting down safely based on whatever information I had about current weather conditions, together with whatever other safety factors I had knowledge of. If the filed alternate appeared to be the best choice based on that, then I would go there.

I think the relevant point is that a pilot's actions when things go wrong should be based on current conditions, whereas filed alternates are based on forecasts. The filed alternate may no longer be the safest choice when the time comes.

That said, I think it was John that did the legwork and found that in a few months (when all flight plans are icao), our alternates will be transmitted with the flight plan. I wonder why that would be...??

My suspicion is that ICAO's bureaucrats are even more out of touch with reality than ours.

Notice that 91.185 does not instruct pilots on where to go if it turns out not to be possible to land at the original destination.

 

[aterpster]

Notice that 91.185 does not instruct pilots on where to go if it turns out not to be possible to land at the original destination.

Correct, as usual. Once you miss at the destination (presuming IMC) under 91.185 it then becomes an emergency.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I get all that... It just sounds like everyone is saying the filed alternate is the LAST place you would go...

I don't think anyone said that or even suggested it. It all depends on where the alternate is and where and what the weather is. I think that's true of every example given in this thread.

The FIRST place in all circumstances was the argument being made by you, so I'm sure you read anyone who disagreed as saying the opposite. They weren't.

That said, I think it was John that did the legwork and found that in a few months (when all flight plans are icao), our alternates will be transmitted with the flight plan. I wonder why that would be...??

Don't know. But hopefully it won't lead more pilots to fly into worsening weather and waste precious time and fuel thinking they are expected to go there.

 

[poadeleted20]

I get all that... It just sounds like everyone is saying the filed alternate is the LAST place you would go...

I certainly never intended to say that. What I meant to say is that it is no more or less likely than any other place to be where you'd go after missing at your destination, and nobody will be expecting you to go there.

That said, I think it was John that did the legwork and found that in a few months (when all flight plans are icao), our alternates will be transmitted with the flight plan. I wonder why that would be...??

I have no idea, but it doesn't change anything about the answer I gave above -- it's still nothing more than a planning exercise and has no bearing on what you might/should do if you actually miss at your destination.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A thought about the 2 alternates in the ICAO flight plan Even as a planning exercise, not a bad idea (BTW, there is also space for takeoff alternates; also not a bad planning idea).

It's a few weeks away but I decided to put together an ICAO flight plan for a trip we are taking to visit relatives. Just seeing that multiple alternate field got me looking at what two viable alternates would be. The destination is about 30 NM inland and there are 2 Class C options (I like Class C options for alternates) within 30 minutes of my destination. One is closer to the coast; the other is further inland. Even on a pretty nice day like today, it's easy to see how different the weather is between the two, with one reporting a 23 hundred foot ceiling and the other a 23 thousand foot ceiling.

 

[poadeleted20]

A thought about the 2 alternates in the ICAO flight plan Even as a planning exercise, not a bad idea (BTW, there is also space for takeoff alternates; also not a bad planning idea).

When I was flying in the USAF in Europe, we had extra rules on alternates above and beyond the USAF-wide standard. If the weather was particularly poor across the continent (not at all unusual in Northern Europe, especially in the winter), we could designate two alternates rather than one, and accept lower forecast weather at each of them than at a single alternate. In that case, we needed fuel to fly the mission, fly an approach at home, fly to the nearer alternate, then fly to the second alternate. In addition, if the weather was below a certain level, we had to designate a takeoff alternate with certain minimum weather forecast.

Of course, the FAA doesn't require anything like this for Part 91 operations, and like the lost comm situation there was no mandate to go to one of the flight plan alternates if you did miss at the destination, but it wouldn't hurt to be thinking that way on one of those days with widespread low weather.

 

[luvflyin]

Ok, little more details:

No onboard weather. IMC is all around me. My weather info is from 3 hours earlier(pre-flight) with no reliable VMC info around any longer. What I knew 3 hours ago is outside my range now.

Is this an emergency cituation? I guess it is and then still what is the best course of action? Alternate with 7700?

The only weather info you have is from 3 hours ago. You went NORDO 5 minutes ago. I'd squawk 7700, do the best I could to stay out of thunderstorms, get the airplane on the ground and stand by to answer the mans questions and think about what I'll be doing to keep myself amused until I get my certificate back.

 

[Palmpilot]

The only weather info you have is from 3 hours ago. You went NORDO 5 minutes ago. I'd squawk 7700, do the best I could to stay out of thunderstorms, get the airplane on the ground and stand by to answer the mans questions and think about what I'll be doing to keep myself amused until I get my certificate back.

What do you see in his scenario that implies certificate action would be likely?

 

[poadeleted20]

The only weather info you have is from 3 hours ago. You went NORDO 5 minutes ago. I'd squawk 7700,

The AIM recommendation to squawk 7700 for one minute before squawking 7600 went away a very long time ago. Stick with 7600 unless you have an additional emergency.

...and stand by to answer the mans questions and think about what I'll be doing to keep myself amused until I get my certificate back.

The only case of which I've ever heard in which the FAA took certificate action over a lost comm situation was a freight pilot flying a 400-series Cessna twin out of Scottsbluff, Nebraska, on a clear-and-a-million day. He never got contact after taking off, and continued lost comm via the 91.185(c) procedures all the way to a busy Class B terminal air carrier hub airport (Denver or Salt Lake City, I forget which). ATC went crazy trying to push all the airliners out of his way. The FAA said he bloody well should have turned around and landed back at Scottsbluff per 91.185(b), and IIRC did an emergency revocation on him.

OTOH, I have never heard of the FAA going after a pilot for landing safely as soon as practicable after an inflight emergency -- including the guy struck by lighting who then promptly landed comm-out and transponder-out at Washington National (DCA) inside the FRZ, the nearest suitable airport based on all conditions at the time he was hit. In fact, the FAA publicly commended him for his handling of the situation.

 

[luvflyin]

What do you see in his scenario that implies certificate action would be likely?

Flying for 3 hours without checking the weather at all and even getting into that situation. I'm kinda new here. I see that has already been talked about. I just responded to the original post without reading all the responses first.