Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?

Two airports in the middle of nowhere 40 miles apart. I can't think of
another reasonable option.

dlevy wrote:
> Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?

Certainly. Nobody cares or checks on what you've filed anyway. If they did,
there's nothing wrong with having the departure airport as a filed alternate.

>
> Two airports in the middle of nowhere 40 miles apart. I can't think of
> another reasonable option.

In article >,
dlevy > wrote:
>Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?
>
>Two airports in the middle of nowhere 40 miles apart. I can't think of
>another reasonable option.

Sure you can file your origin as your alternate. There's no reason
not to. All an alternate means is someplace you've pre-computed you
should (according to specific criteria laid out in part 91) be able to
get into if your destination becomes unusable.

If your goal is to get someplace, turning around and going back home
may not be very useful, but it's certainly legal.

"dlevy" > wrote in news:7_0td.36539$Dm2.20820
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

> Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?

Certainly. I do it all the time. As long as it meets the weather
requirements and you have the fuel onboard, you can use it.

--
Regards,

Stan

In a previous article, "dlevy" > said:
>Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?

I'm pretty sure one of the cross country questions in the IFR "written"
does exactly that.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Simulated editor war, conducted by seasoned professionals in a controlled
environment. Don't try this at home.
-- Christian Bauernfeind

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:54:29 -0600, "dlevy" > wrote:

>Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?
>

Does it qualify as an alternate?


>Two airports in the middle of nowhere 40 miles apart. I can't think of
>another reasonable option.
>

I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an
alternate.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:54:29 -0600, "dlevy" > wrote:
>
>>Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?
>>
>
> Does it qualify as an alternate?
>
>
>>Two airports in the middle of nowhere 40 miles apart. I can't think of
>>another reasonable option.
>>
>

dlevy wrote:

> Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?
>
> Two airports in the middle of nowhere 40 miles apart. I can't think of
> another reasonable option.
>
>

Sure, why not?


Matt

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:13:25 GMT, wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:54:29 -0600, "dlevy" > wrote:
>
>>Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?
>>
>
>Does it qualify as an alternate?
>
You can file it as the destination too.

I filed from 3BS direct MBS VOR, LAN, AMN, 3BS.
There was a pause and the briefer said, I think I can see a way to
save you a lot of gas if you are willing to go direct.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>Two airports in the middle of nowhere 40 miles apart. I can't think of
>>another reasonable option.
>>

Roger wrote:
> I filed from 3BS direct MBS VOR, LAN, AMN, 3BS.
> There was a pause and the briefer said, I think I can see a way to
> save you a lot of gas if you are willing to go direct.

:-)

Actually, I've filed similar plans with Lansing, and they wouldn't let
me. They insisted that I file at least 2 plans, one departing Midland
and the other departing Lansing.

I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the
departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave
another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK).

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Actually, I've filed similar plans with Lansing, and they wouldn't let
> me. They insisted that I file at least 2 plans, one departing Midland
> and the other departing Lansing.
>
> I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the
> departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave
> another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK).

Not all FSS specialists know everything they need to know.

--
Regards,

Stan

> I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the
> departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave
> another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK).

They have no basis to refuse to take it. The alternate airport doesn't
even get processed into the system beyond the originating FSS.

I know of an operator who operates a Gulfstream 5 on a regular basis from
LAX to HNL. During the winter when the weather is really churning in the
islands with a tropical convergence and all that brings, he files LAX as
his alternate. Experience has shown that operator that since they can
carry the fuel it is sometimes better to turn around should things be
nastier than forecast when they arrive in the area over there.

dlevy wrote:
> I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an
> alternate.

Why not?

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote:
> Actually, I've filed similar plans with Lansing, and they wouldn't let
> me. They insisted that I file at least 2 plans, one departing Midland
> and the other departing Lansing.

Technically, they should let you do that, but I'm sure there's some
operational reason why it's easier on ATC to have two distinct flight
plans, so I'm willing to go with the flow on this. The pilot and ATC
need to act as a team for things to work efficiently. If one team
member says, "please just do it my way" and it's no big deal to comply,
there's no reason to get bent out of shape over it.

> I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the
> departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave
> another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK).

This one I just don't understand. What alternate you file has
absolutely no impact for ATC. It's a regulatory obligation that the
pilot has to comply with to be legal. There's no reason at all that FSS
or ATC should give a rats ass what your alternate is, and for an FSS guy
to refuse to accept your stated alternate is absurd. I'd have told the
guy to just enter the flight plan the way I read it to him.

That's just one more reason I prefer DUAT to FSS. The DUAT software may
not be the most user friendly in the world, but at least each time I log
in, it doesn't invent some new stupid rule that doesn't really exist.
As long as the flight plan I give it is syntactically and semantically
correct, it accepts whatever bizarre route I felt like inventing without
giving me any 'tude.

Because I would use the qualification as an alternate as a reasonable way to
get back on the ground.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> dlevy wrote:
>> I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an
>> alternate.
>
> Why not?

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:39:22 -0600, "dlevy" > wrote:

>Because I would use the qualification as an alternate as a reasonable way to
>get back on the ground.

The qualifications for an alternate have nothing to do with a
reasonable way to get back on the ground, except by coincidence.

Alternates are used for computing legal fuel requirements.

What you do to get back on the ground will depend on circumstances at
the time.

There's a huge difference between "alternate" and "alternative".



>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>> dlevy wrote:
>>> I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an
>>> alternate.
>>
>> Why not?
>

Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun? In radar environments,
it's probably not as big of a deal. But when not in radar, if you miss at
your destination, ATC has a pretty good idea where you're headed next if you
listed an alternate. Or at least where you said you would head if things
didn't work out at the destination.


> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:39:22 -0600, "dlevy" > wrote:
>
> >Because I would use the qualification as an alternate as a reasonable way
to
> >get back on the ground.
>
> The qualifications for an alternate have nothing to do with a
> reasonable way to get back on the ground, except by coincidence.
>
> Alternates are used for computing legal fuel requirements.
>
> What you do to get back on the ground will depend on circumstances at
> the time.
>
> There's a huge difference between "alternate" and "alternative".
>
>
>
> >"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> dlevy wrote:
> >>> I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an
> >>> alternate.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
>

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:39:51 GMT, "Steven Barnes"
> wrote:

>Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun? In radar environments,
>it's probably not as big of a deal. But when not in radar, if you miss at
>your destination, ATC has a pretty good idea where you're headed next if you
>listed an alternate. Or at least where you said you would head if things
>didn't work out at the destination.
>

One of aviation's biggest myths.



>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:39:22 -0600, "dlevy" > wrote:
>>
>> >Because I would use the qualification as an alternate as a reasonable way
>to
>> >get back on the ground.
>>
>> The qualifications for an alternate have nothing to do with a
>> reasonable way to get back on the ground, except by coincidence.
>>
>> Alternates are used for computing legal fuel requirements.
>>
>> What you do to get back on the ground will depend on circumstances at
>> the time.
>>
>> There's a huge difference between "alternate" and "alternative".
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> dlevy wrote:
>> >>> I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an
>> >>> alternate.
>> >>
>> >> Why not?
>> >
>>
>

Steven Barnes wrote:
> Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun? In radar environments,
> it's probably not as big of a deal. But when not in radar, if you miss at
> your destination, ATC has a pretty good idea where you're headed next if you
> listed an alternate. Or at least where you said you would head if things
> didn't work out at the destination.

Nope, ATC doesn't even know what you filed as an alternate. It's not on the
flight progress strip. DGB

>If your goal is to get someplace, turning around and going back home
>may not be very useful, but it's certainly legal.

It may be very useful. If you have a "there or nowhere" destination -
meaning if you can't get in there, you might as well never have left
home - and your home is a valid alternate, it makes no sense not to use
it.

Whenever I make a business trip from Houston to Austin when the weather
is iffy in Austin but not in Houston, I file my alternate back in
Houston. If I can't get in at Austin, it does me no good to get in
somewhere 50 miles away with no arrangements for ground transport. I'm
going to miss my meeting anyway, so I might as well turn around and go
home.

Michael

Steven Barnes wrote:
> Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun?

ATC has no clue as to what your alternate is.

On 7 Dec 2004 12:17:31 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>Whenever I make a business trip from Houston to Austin when the weather
>is iffy in Austin but not in Houston, I file my alternate back in
>Houston. If I can't get in at Austin, it does me no good to get in
>somewhere 50 miles away with no arrangements for ground transport. I'm
>going to miss my meeting anyway, so I might as well turn around and go
>home.
>
>Michael


So what difference does it make what your alternate is?

If you want to go back to Houston, you go back to Houston, whether
your alternate is Houston, New Orleans or Hong Kong.

You don't have to go to your alternate if you don't wnat to, ever.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Brien K. Meehan" > wrote:
>
> > I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the
> > departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave
> > another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK).
>
> This one I just don't understand. What alternate you file has
> absolutely no impact for ATC. It's a regulatory obligation that the
> pilot has to comply with to be legal. There's no reason at all that FSS
> or ATC should give a rats ass what your alternate is, and for an FSS guy
> to refuse to accept your stated alternate is absurd. I'd have told the
> guy to just enter the flight plan the way I read it to him.

When I file I'll give them the flight plan first without the alternate, then
listen to the briefing, and use that to figure out whether I need an
alternate and what the best one is. Most of the time I need to remind them
not to hang up on me after they finish giving me the weather. Most of the
time I'm filing with Bridgeport.

-cwk.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> I know of an operator who operates a Gulfstream 5 on a regular basis from
> LAX to HNL. During the winter when the weather is really churning in the
> islands with a tropical convergence and all that brings, he files LAX as
> his alternate.

Wow. Talk about the mother of all 180 degree turns!

-cwk.

In article et>,
C Kingsbury > wrote:
>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> I know of an operator who operates a Gulfstream 5 on a regular basis from
>> LAX to HNL. During the winter when the weather is really churning in the
>> islands with a tropical convergence and all that brings, he files LAX as
>> his alternate.
>
>Wow. Talk about the mother of all 180 degree turns!

Doesn't hold a candle to Apollo 13.

<i>You don't have to go to your alternate if you don't wnat to,
ever.</i>

True. But why bother with working out your actual Plan B, making sure
fuel and weather are going to be OK for it - and then filing something
else? I generally make it a point to file as my alternate what I
really intend to use, unless legalities prevent me from doing so.
Michael

On 7 Dec 2004 14:39:26 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

><i>You don't have to go to your alternate if you don't wnat to,
>ever.</i>
>
>True. But why bother with working out your actual Plan B, making sure
>fuel and weather are going to be OK for it - and then filing something
>else? I generally make it a point to file as my alternate what I
>really intend to use, unless legalities prevent me from doing so.
>Michael

You said this:

"Whenever I make a business trip from Houston to Austin when the
weather is iffy in Austin but not in Houston, I file my alternate back
in Houston. If I can't get in at Austin, it does me no good to get in
somewhere 50 miles away with no arrangements for ground transport"


implying that you would be stuck going "fifty miles away" just because
it was filed as an alternate.

This isn't true, and maybe it wasn't what you intended to suggest.
You could go back to Houston regardless.

If you intended to say that it saved the trouble of a separate flight
plan to a different alternate to compute fuel requirements, I agree.

Roy Smith wrote:
> Technically, they should let you do that, but I'm sure there's some
> operational reason why it's easier on ATC to have two distinct flight

> plans, so I'm willing to go with the flow on this. The pilot and ATC

> need to act as a team for things to work efficiently. If one team
> member says, "please just do it my way" and it's no big deal to
comply,
> there's no reason to get bent out of shape over it.

I think the briefer said that Detroit Approach requested or required
them to make a distinct plan for flights crossing their border, even if
you're not landing. If I'd go PTK-FNT-PTK, Flint would give me a new
clearance and new squawk code when I was done with the practice
approaches.

So, maybe that wouldn't apply to 3BS-LAN, but it would to 3BS-PTK. Hmm.

wrote:

>
>
>>I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the
>>departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave
>>another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK).
>
>
> They have no basis to refuse to take it. The alternate airport doesn't
> even get processed into the system beyond the originating FSS.
>
> I know of an operator who operates a Gulfstream 5 on a regular basis from
> LAX to HNL. During the winter when the weather is really churning in the
> islands with a tropical convergence and all that brings, he files LAX as
> his alternate. Experience has shown that operator that since they can
> carry the fuel it is sometimes better to turn around should things be
> nastier than forecast when they arrive in the area over there.
>

A G5 can really fly from LAX to HNL back to LAX and still fly for 45
minutes more?

Matt

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1102448212.183819@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Steven Barnes wrote:
> > Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun? In radar
environments,
> > it's probably not as big of a deal. But when not in radar, if you miss
at
> > your destination, ATC has a pretty good idea where you're headed next if
you
> > listed an alternate. Or at least where you said you would head if things
> > didn't work out at the destination.
>
> Nope, ATC doesn't even know what you filed as an alternate. It's not on
the
> flight progress strip. DGB

Really. Well, other than making you think about what could go wrong and
providing more to learn for students, what is it actually used for? (or was
that the original question in this thread...)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:43:37 GMT, "Steven Barnes"
> wrote:

>"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
>news:1102448212.183819@sj-nntpcache-5...
>> Steven Barnes wrote:
>> > Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun? In radar
>environments,
>> > it's probably not as big of a deal. But when not in radar, if you miss
>at
>> > your destination, ATC has a pretty good idea where you're headed next if
>you
>> > listed an alternate. Or at least where you said you would head if things
>> > didn't work out at the destination.
>>
>> Nope, ATC doesn't even know what you filed as an alternate. It's not on
>the
>> flight progress strip. DGB
>
>Really. Well, other than making you think about what could go wrong and
>providing more to learn for students, what is it actually used for? (or was
>that the original question in this thread...)
>


So that you pack enough fuel so you can get to an airport that is
bsically VFR

Matt Whiting wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the
> >>departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave
> >>another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK).
> >
> >
> > They have no basis to refuse to take it. The alternate airport doesn't
> > even get processed into the system beyond the originating FSS.
> >
> > I know of an operator who operates a Gulfstream 5 on a regular basis from
> > LAX to HNL. During the winter when the weather is really churning in the
> > islands with a tropical convergence and all that brings, he files LAX as
> > his alternate. Experience has shown that operator that since they can
> > carry the fuel it is sometimes better to turn around should things be
> > nastier than forecast when they arrive in the area over there.
> >
>
> A G5 can really fly from LAX to HNL back to LAX and still fly for 45
> minutes more?
>

If you fill the tanks you could go LAX-HNL-LAX-HNL.

It has a max range of 6,500 nautical miles. LAX to HNL is about 2,200 n.m.

Do it all the time HSV-MEM-(alt)HSV
"dlevy" > wrote in message
. ..
> Can you file the departure airport as the alternate?
>
> Two airports in the middle of nowhere 40 miles apart. I can't think of
> another reasonable option.
>

wrote:

>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the
>>>>departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave
>>>>another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK).
>>>
>>>
>>>They have no basis to refuse to take it. The alternate airport doesn't
>>>even get processed into the system beyond the originating FSS.
>>>
>>>I know of an operator who operates a Gulfstream 5 on a regular basis from
>>>LAX to HNL. During the winter when the weather is really churning in the
>>>islands with a tropical convergence and all that brings, he files LAX as
>>>his alternate. Experience has shown that operator that since they can
>>>carry the fuel it is sometimes better to turn around should things be
>>>nastier than forecast when they arrive in the area over there.
>>>
>>
>>A G5 can really fly from LAX to HNL back to LAX and still fly for 45
>>minutes more?
>>
>
>
> If you fill the tanks you could go LAX-HNL-LAX-HNL.
>
> It has a max range of 6,500 nautical miles. LAX to HNL is about 2,200 n.m.
>
>

Probably could make some extra change tankering Jet A to HNL. :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

Probably could make some extra change tankering Jet A to HNL. :-)

>

Problem with that is the extra fuel offloaded from a G5 wouldn't wet the tank
bottoms on a 777. ;-)