To my knowledge, in the US one must file an alternate IFR airport
regardless of the weather if the destination airport does not have an
IFR approach. Can someone please quote me the FAA regulation where
this is actually spelled out? Thanks!

Gerd

On 11 May 2005 08:15:28 -0700, "gwengler" >
wrote:

>To my knowledge, in the US one must file an alternate IFR airport
>regardless of the weather if the destination airport does not have an
>IFR approach. Can someone please quote me the FAA regulation where
>this is actually spelled out? Thanks!
>
>Gerd


Sec. 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.

(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each
person
filing an IFR flight plan shall include in it the following
information:
(1) Information required under Sec. 91.153(a).
(2) An alternate airport, except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this
section.
(b) Exceptions to applicability of paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if part 97 of this
chapter
prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure for the first
airport of
intended landing and, for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after
the
estimated time of arrival, the weather reports or forecasts, or any
combination of them, indicate--
(1) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport
elevation;
and
(2) The visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minimums.


etc,,,

In article . com>,
gwengler > wrote:
>To my knowledge, in the US one must file an alternate IFR airport
>regardless of the weather if the destination airport does not have an
>IFR approach. Can someone please quote me the FAA regulation where
>this is actually spelled out? Thanks!

91.169(b). It's a little confusing, since it's worded as an
exception. If your destination does not have an SIAP, it doesn't meet
the requirements of the exception clause.

Actually, I just noticed a detail I never saw before. It says:

"... a standard instrument approach procedure to [...] the FIRST
AIRPORT OF INTENDED LANDING" (my emphasis).

So, it seems like I could file "HPN -D-> BDR D/010 -D-> BOS",
i.e. "White Plains, direct Bridgeport, ten minute delay (not sure if I
got the flight plan symbol right for that), direct Boston" and as long
as BDR doesn't doesn't require an alternate, I don't have to file one
for the BOS leg either, since BDR is my "first airport of intended
landing".

This seems rather stupid, but if you read the reg literally, that's
what it says.

gwengler wrote:
> To my knowledge, in the US one must file an alternate IFR airport
> regardless of the weather if the destination airport does not have an
> IFR approach. Can someone please quote me the FAA regulation where
> this is actually spelled out? Thanks!
>
> Gerd
>

It's in the section on required information on a flight plan: 91.169(2)
says you need an alternate airport, unless there's a published approach
and the weather is good enough.

On 11 May 2005 12:02:49 -0400, (Roy Smith) wrote:

>91.169(b). It's a little confusing, since it's worded as an
>exception. If your destination does not have an SIAP, it doesn't meet
>the requirements of the exception clause.


What's confusing about it?

It simply says that if there is no published IAP AND (min weather
requirements), that you must file an alternate.


You must meet both conditions (published approach AND weather mins)
in order to to be excluded from the requirement for an alternate.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:16:42 GMT, wrote:

>On 11 May 2005 12:02:49 -0400, (Roy Smith) wrote:
>
>>91.169(b). It's a little confusing, since it's worded as an
>>exception. If your destination does not have an SIAP, it doesn't meet
>>the requirements of the exception clause.
>
>
>What's confusing about it?
>
>It simply says that if there is no published IAP AND (min weather
>requirements), that you must file an alternate.
>
>
>You must meet both conditions (published approach AND weather mins)
>in order to to be excluded from the requirement for an alternate.


Bad wording in paragraph 2. AND should be OR.

Maybe it's confusling after all.

Why are you trying to get out of filing an alternate? Is there some
reason that this is difficult to do for you?

I would suggest that you always file an alternate and forget about
having to memorize when, where, why and how. Much easier and
eventually may save you some confusing during a time of quick decision
making.

Greg


Roy Smith wrote:
>
> So, it seems like I could file "HPN -D-> BDR D/010 -D-> BOS",
> i.e. "White Plains, direct Bridgeport, ten minute delay (not sure if
I
> got the flight plan symbol right for that), direct Boston" and as
long
> as BDR doesn't doesn't require an alternate, I don't have to file one
> for the BOS leg either, since BDR is my "first airport of intended
> landing".
>

"gregscheetah" > wrote in
ups.com:

> Why are you trying to get out of filing an alternate? Is there some
> reason that this is difficult to do for you?
>
> I would suggest that you always file an alternate and forget about
> having to memorize when, where, why and how. Much easier and
> eventually may save you some confusing during a time of quick decision
> making.

Filing an alternate shouldn't have any effect on your decision making at
the destination. Alternate requirements are for fuel planning only. As
soon as you take off, the alternate you filed becomes immaterial. ATC
doesn't know what alternate you filed, or if you filed one. When you get
to your destination and miss, then you need to make a decision on where
to go. You should have been keeping up on the weather at your
destination, your alternate, and other possible diversions. The
alternate you filed may not be the best place to go, for both weather and
personal convenience. Once you miss and decide to go somewhere else,
you're free to go anywhere you have the fuel to get to, and ATC will ask
you your intentions when you miss, having no idea where you want to go.
You now have to decide. If you want to blindly go to your filed
alternate without even thinking any further, you can, but make sure you
check the current weather first. I often file an alternate with no
intention whatsoever of ever going there.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Pilots do too many stupid things already that get themselves killed.
Requiring an alternate is nothing more than a simple attempt to make pilots
do something that they should plan for anyway. Even when I file an
alternate, I always like to have plates for another "personal" alternate so
that I have one more choice if weather goes bad at my destination.
I don't see why this reg should bother anyone enough to even bring it up
for discussion.

MJC

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> "gregscheetah" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > Why are you trying to get out of filing an alternate? Is there some
> > reason that this is difficult to do for you?
> >
> > I would suggest that you always file an alternate and forget about
> > having to memorize when, where, why and how. Much easier and
> > eventually may save you some confusing during a time of quick decision
> > making.
>
> Filing an alternate shouldn't have any effect on your decision making at
> the destination. Alternate requirements are for fuel planning only. As
> soon as you take off, the alternate you filed becomes immaterial. ATC
> doesn't know what alternate you filed, or if you filed one. When you get
> to your destination and miss, then you need to make a decision on where
> to go. You should have been keeping up on the weather at your
> destination, your alternate, and other possible diversions. The
> alternate you filed may not be the best place to go, for both weather and
> personal convenience. Once you miss and decide to go somewhere else,
> you're free to go anywhere you have the fuel to get to, and ATC will ask
> you your intentions when you miss, having no idea where you want to go.
> You now have to decide. If you want to blindly go to your filed
> alternate without even thinking any further, you can, but make sure you
> check the current weather first. I often file an alternate with no
> intention whatsoever of ever going there.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Stan
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

On Fri, 13 May 2005 08:47:48 -0500, "MJC" > wrote:

>I always like to have plates for another "personal" alternate so
>that I have one more choice if weather goes bad at my destination.


You don't need plates to have another choice.

If need be, ask ATC to read the approach. I'm not suggesting a
cavalier attitude about having plates, but no one should ever choose
to accept a less desirable alternative because plates are not
available, for whatever reason. ATC has all the information necessary
to follow an approach procedure, and they will provide it to you if
required.

gregscheetah wrote:
> Why are you trying to get out of filing an alternate? Is there some
> reason that this is difficult to do for you?
>
> I would suggest that you always file an alternate and forget about
> having to memorize when, where, why and how. Much easier and
> eventually may save you some confusing during a time of quick decision
> making.
>
> Greg

I can see a couple reasons why one would not wish to file an alternate.
If I recall correctly, you must have enough fuel to fly to the alternate
and then 45 minutes beyond. If the alternate is say, 30 minutes away,
that would require an extra hour and 15 minutes of fuel. This could
affect weight and balance calculations and maybe the necessity to plan
an extra fuel stop.

Antonio

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
> gregscheetah wrote:
> > Why are you trying to get out of filing an alternate? Is there some
> > reason that this is difficult to do for you?
> >
> > I would suggest that you always file an alternate and forget about
> > having to memorize when, where, why and how. Much easier and
> > eventually may save you some confusing during a time of quick decision
> > making.
> >
> > Greg
>
> I can see a couple reasons why one would not wish to file an alternate.
> If I recall correctly, you must have enough fuel to fly to the alternate
> and then 45 minutes beyond. If the alternate is say, 30 minutes away,
> that would require an extra hour and 15 minutes of fuel. This could
> affect weight and balance calculations and maybe the necessity to plan
> an extra fuel stop.
>
> Antonio
>

Your plan, then, if you can't make your intended destination if you couldn't
even make your best alternate (that you don't want to file for)?

MJC

MJC wrote:

> Your plan, then, if you can't make your intended destination if you couldn't
> even make your best alternate (that you don't want to file for)?
>
> MJC

A few theoretical answers...

1. You might be able to make an alternate that would not qualify,
strictly speaking, under the rules as an alternate...say a private turf
airport 1 mile away from the intended destination. To file an alternate
that *would* qualify would require extra fuel that may not be desirable
or even necessary.

2. It might be CAVU everywhere in the world and you do not see the point
to filing an alternate that would require carrying the extra fuel and
doing the extra planning.

3.I might file an alternate, then decide to use some other alternate
which wasn't planned for. However, the fuel requirements to get to the
filed alternate and 45 minutes beyond would still be in effect.

4.I might be in a helicopter and not realistically need an alternate.

5.I might be in a float plane and use some known lake as a backup.


I hope you realize that all the above is just theoretical with a partial
tongue in cheek. Personally, I always file a legal alternate. I just
thought there might be situations where, for whatever reason, one might
not wish to.


Antonio
>
>

wrote in news:gjh9811rc9iodvmua8f7ibbuqc83kotbci@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 13 May 2005 08:47:48 -0500, "MJC" > wrote:
>
>>I always like to have plates for another "personal" alternate so
>>that I have one more choice if weather goes bad at my destination.
>
>
> You don't need plates to have another choice.
>
> If need be, ask ATC to read the approach. I'm not suggesting a
> cavalier attitude about having plates, but no one should ever choose
> to accept a less desirable alternative because plates are not
> available, for whatever reason. ATC has all the information necessary
> to follow an approach procedure, and they will provide it to you if
> required.

A prudent pilot will have approach plates ready for a number of possible
alternates, but stuff does happen, and an airport you don't have plates
for might be the safest diversion. You can get it all read for you if
you need it, and by the time it gets to this it's reaching the emergency
level anyway.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Antoñio > wrote in
:

> 4.I might be in a helicopter and not realistically need an alternate.

Helicopters have the same alternate requirements as fixed-wing, except
that they only require fuel for 30 minutes after the alternate. Lack of
range does mean that a helicopter pilot has to plan very carefully,
though.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Y'All,
Would appreciate comments and suggestions for additions and/or
changes in this collection of ideas before I put it up on my site.

Gene

Alternate Alternatives
---Alternate required for any ceiling below 2000 and below 3-miles

---Not required if one hour each side of ETA weather is 2000 AGL and 3
statute miles visibility
---You do not have to fly to your legal alternate if you can find a safer
option
---Plan to land with your 45-minute required fuel reserve otherwise you can
be busted
---Having fuel extends the options available, maxim range flights non-stop
reduce your options
---Your alternate selection is based on pre-flight weather forecasts, void
once in flight
---Your alternate selection is also based on airport restrictions for
selection
---A pilot should have an alternate plan for any situation that can occur
---Filing to a non-instrument airport requires an alternate regardless

---Regardless of forecasts suggest that you fly only into improving
conditions
---Monitor AWOS and ATIS frequencies en route for current changes in
conditions
---Primary concern should be with weather as forecast one hour each side of
the ETA
---Your fuel for planned direct to alternate may not fit into using ATC IFR
route
---Never, never rely on fuel gauges as to available fuel, fly by time in
tanks
---Standard alternate minimums of 2 miles and 600/800 are minimums
---You can never have too much fuel unless you are on fire

---Advise ATC on completing or canceling flight when non-towered airport

Gene Whitt wrote:


> ---You do not have to fly to your legal alternate if you can find a safer
> option

....you don't have to fly to it at all. The designation of the alternate
is purely a preflight planning/fuel reserve issue. Further ATC has no
clue what your alternate is.

> ---Plan to land with your 45-minute required fuel reserve otherwise you can
> be busted

Only if you departed without sufficient fuel to hit the desination, the
alternate, and then 45 minutes. It's not illegal to consume your
reserve (inadvisable perhaps, but not illegal).

> ---Having fuel extends the options available, maxim range flights non-stop
> reduce your options
> ---Your alternate selection is based on pre-flight weather forecasts, void
> once in flight

And any forecast, "temporary" or "chance" in the forecast must be
counted as a likely event and drive the selection.


> ---Never, never rely on fuel gauges as to available fuel, fly by time in
> tanks

Always take the more pessimistic view of the guages and your watch.
I've had two friends put down off-field because they had higher than
expected fuel burns (in one case a mechanical failure was found, in the
other, I don't think he'll ever know why the fuel didn't last).

Ron Natalie > wrote:
> > ---Never, never rely on fuel gauges as to available fuel, fly by time in
> > tanks
>
> Always take the more pessimistic view of the guages and your watch.
> I've had two friends put down off-field because they had higher than
> expected fuel burns (in one case a mechanical failure was found, in the
> other, I don't think he'll ever know why the fuel didn't last).

My club has been putting fuel computers into our planes. It's basicly just
an accurate flow meter spliced into the fuel line going to the engine. You
tell it how much you started out with, and it tells you instantaneous flow
rate and how much you've used (or got left). A wonderful tool.

The idea that a watch and a predicted flow rate is your most accurate way
of determining how much fuel you have left is absurd. The only thing
that's more absurd is that GA fuel quantity gauges are so inaccurate that
the watch and predicted flow rate actually is the best way, or at least was
until fuel computers became available.

Roy Smith wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>>>---Never, never rely on fuel gauges as to available fuel, fly by time in
>>>tanks
>>
>>Always take the more pessimistic view of the guages and your watch.
>>I've had two friends put down off-field because they had higher than
>>expected fuel burns (in one case a mechanical failure was found, in the
>>other, I don't think he'll ever know why the fuel didn't last).
>
>
> My club has been putting fuel computers into our planes. It's basicly just
> an accurate flow meter spliced into the fuel line going to the engine. You
> tell it how much you started out with, and it tells you instantaneous flow
> rate and how much you've used (or got left). A wonderful tool.

Agree these are wonderful tools. Don't forget they only measure the flow rate
that goes through the flowmeter. A leaking gas cap, for example, can not be
detected by watching your flowmeter. Not implying that you didn't already know
that, of course.

>
> The idea that a watch and a predicted flow rate is your most accurate way
> of determining how much fuel you have left is absurd. The only thing
> that's more absurd is that GA fuel quantity gauges are so inaccurate that
> the watch and predicted flow rate actually is the best way, or at least was
> until fuel computers became available.

Experience in the individual airplane or at least in make and model can improve
your ability to predict, but only if you keep records of fuel use. When I
started keeping records, I realized how far off I was in my earlier fuel use
predictions.