Alternate requirements

[Anthony Chambers]

I've spent the past couple of hours researching this in the regs and
newsgroups... and am still a little confused

If I require an alternate airport for a IFR Flight plan, does that alternate
have to have official weather reporting? I read somewhere that:

"The requirements for an airport to qualify for alternate minimums are
weather reporting and approach facility (navaid) monitoring"

But I also read that I can file an alternate with no approaches and no
weather reporting as long as I can descend under Basic VFR from the MEA to
the airport (Part 91).

What gives?

[Stan Gosnell]

"Anthony Chambers" > wrote in
:

> I've spent the past couple of hours researching this in the regs and
> newsgroups... and am still a little confused
>
> If I require an alternate airport for a IFR Flight plan, does that
> alternate have to have official weather reporting? I read somewhere
> that:
>
> "The requirements for an airport to qualify for alternate minimums are
> weather reporting and approach facility (navaid) monitoring"
>
> But I also read that I can file an alternate with no approaches and no
> weather reporting as long as I can descend under Basic VFR from the
> MEA to the airport (Part 91).

You can file a destination with no approaches and no weather reporting as
long as you can descend VFR. But you have to have a legal alternate to do
so.

See FAR 91.169, http://tinyurl.com/no9h
--
Regards,

Stan

[Ron Natalie]

"Anthony Chambers" > wrote in message ...
> I've spent the past couple of hours researching this in the regs and
> newsgroups... and am still a little confused
>
> If I require an alternate airport for a IFR Flight plan, does that alternate
> have to have official weather reporting? I read somewhere that:
>
The rule is:
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minima. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator,
no person may include an alternate airport in an IFR flight plan unless appropriate weather
reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, [600-2, 800-2, or VFR from MEA down
as appropriate].

Whether you can glean this from area forcasts in the absence of on-field reporting is
up for you to decide (as a non-commercial operator). Airports without weather that
have approaches will generally have NA Alternate Minimums.

[Ron Natalie]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message ...


> You can file a destination with no approaches and no weather reporting as
> long as you can descend VFR. But you have to have a legal alternate to do
> so.
>
That's not what he asked.

[Stan Gosnell]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> You can file a destination with no approaches and no weather
>> reporting as long as you can descend VFR. But you have to have a
>> legal alternate to do so.
>>
> That's not what he asked.
>
>

I thought it was. Perhaps I wasn't clear. He can file a destination with
no approaches or weather, but he can't file an alternate with no approaches
or weather. I think he was confusing destination and alternate
requirements.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Ron Natalie]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message ...

> I thought it was. Perhaps I wasn't clear. He can file a destination with
> no approaches or weather, but he can't file an alternate with no approaches
> or weather. I think he was confusing destination and alternate
> requirements.

He specifically asked if the alternate had to have weather reporting.

There is no requirement that the alternate have an approach nor is their a strict
requirement for "on-field" weather at the alternate. If the forcast is for severe
clear with no "chance of" or "probability of" lower than VFR conditions from the
MEA down to the ground, it's legal to use that airport as an alternate.

[Ray Andraka]

Unless that airport is one that is not authorized as an alternate. As I understand it, most that don't
have wx reporting are so designated.

Ron Natalie wrote:

> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message ...
>
> > I thought it was. Perhaps I wasn't clear. He can file a destination with
> > no approaches or weather, but he can't file an alternate with no approaches
> > or weather. I think he was confusing destination and alternate
> > requirements.
>
> He specifically asked if the alternate had to have weather reporting.
>
> There is no requirement that the alternate have an approach nor is their a strict
> requirement for "on-field" weather at the alternate. If the forcast is for severe
> clear with no "chance of" or "probability of" lower than VFR conditions from the
> MEA down to the ground, it's legal to use that airport as an alternate.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ron Natalie]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message ...
> Unless that airport is one that is not authorized as an alternate. As I understand it, most that don't
> have wx reporting are so designated.
>
As I pointed out in my original response, if the airport has an approach, then the TERPS
say to mark it as NA if it has no weather. If the airport doesn't have an approach, there
is nowhere to mark it as NA (of course, you're pretty much going in their in VFR conditions
anyhow so it doesn't matter).

[ArtP]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:33:14 -0400, Ray Andraka >
wrote:

>Unless that airport is one that is not authorized as an alternate. As I understand it, most that don't
>have wx reporting are so designated.

I think it is approaches that are NA, not airports. For instance W50
has no IFR approaches, so it has no NA approaches and the AFD does not
indicate it the airport is NA. I would assume that any visual approach
that is not NA is suitable for an alternate.