Filing IFR to an airport with no instrument approach?
Roy Smith
destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
be IFR en-route.
--
Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Ron Natalie
: I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
: destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
: fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
: be IFR en-route.
Sure, it's even a special case in the alternate requirement. You can
file to a place with no approach, but an alternate will is required.
You can even use a no approach field for your alternate if the forecast
visibility and ceiling will allow you to descend and land to the field
in basic VFR.
-ROn
Steve Shaffer
I thought I knew the answer to this, but maybe not. Don't you have
to file to point in space (i.e. an intersection, VOR, etc.) from
which you can then make an VFR approach to the airport? I didn't
think you could use a non-IFR airport as the destination.
Steve Shaffer
Philip D Bridges
>I thought I knew the answer to this, but maybe not. Don't you have
>to file to point in space (i.e. an intersection, VOR, etc.) from
>which you can then make an VFR approach to the airport? I didn't
>think you could use a non-IFR airport as the destination.
No, you can file to the airport, even if it does not have an
instrument approach. You are conducting IFR flight under VMC
when you execute the approach to the airport without a
published instrument approach, so the airport is the first
intended point of landing. When I have done this, I have
received a cruise clearance when approaching the airport.
Center then expects me to call them when I have the airport
in sight for my VMC approach.
Phil Bridges
Comm, ASMEL&S/Helo, Inst Airplane/Helo
William LeFebvre
Ron Natalie <r...@topaz.sensor.com> wrote:
>Sure, it's even a special case in the alternate requirement. You can
>file to a place with no approach, but an alternate will is required.
What, your regular will isn't legally sound if you die while trying to
fly IFR to a VFR-only field? Lousy lawyers......
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
William LeFebvre
lefe...@dis.anl.gov
William LeFebvre
Roy Smith (r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu) wrote:
: I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
: destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
: fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
: be IFR en-route.
Steve Shaffer <steve_...@hp-sonoma-om1.om.hp.com> wrote:
>I thought I knew the answer to this, but maybe not. Don't you have
>to file to point in space (i.e. an intersection, VOR, etc.) from
>which you can then make an VFR approach to the airport? I didn't
>think you could use a non-IFR airport as the destination.
Yes you can use an non-IFR airport as a destination. You can use
anything as a destination (why would a non-IFR airport be any
different than a point in space?)
Go re-read the pertinent section of the AIM. It is spelled out there:
when filing to an airport that has no instrument approach, there must
be a reasonable expectation that you will be able to proceed VFR from
the MEA or MVA to the intended destination (i.e.: the ceiling is at
least 500 feet above the MEA or MVA).
Also remember, you aren't allowed to use a contact approach to get in
to an airport that has no instrument approach.
William LeFebvre
lefe...@dis.anl.gov
John Prickett
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
>destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
>fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
>be IFR en-route.
>
>Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
>Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
>NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
>"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
sure. just remember the 1-2-3 rule for alternates, and
keep updating yourself enroute on the weather.
john
--
john.p...@amd.com
phone 512-602-6829
fax 512-602-7683
Charles H Shooshan III
>
>
> sure. just remember the 1-2-3 rule for alternates, and
> keep updating yourself enroute on the weather.
>
> john
>
Okay, I'll bite. What's the "1-2-3 rule for alternates"?
--Charlie
hans van oort
local MEA or MSA to the airport in VFR conditions.
Hans
--
Johannes M. van Oort | Buttons.................Check ______|______
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory | Dials...................Check \( )/
h...@frey.lbl.gov | Switches................Check / | \
(510) 486-4137 | Little colored lights...Check (Calvin&Hobbes)
William Lorimer
r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote:
> I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
> destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
> fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
> be IFR en-route.
Funny, I was just wondering the same thing myself. I'd very much like to
know the answer too.
Common sense would indicate that, if the destination has an approach that
you are qualified to fly, then you should be able to file IFR to it as
long as you specify an acceptable alternate. But then, common sense often
has little to do with regulations.
A related question - could you use a non-IFR airport as an alternate if it
was forecast to be VFR on arrival?
--
WR Lorimer
SASE PGP Public Key: (First and Last lines removed)
------------
Version: 2.6
mQA9Ai9/vfMAAAEBgM7/4JRF7ZkIJFTJD4//jL/0gAu6vzZoHpQ2BZyE94J0Gzhv
Mn1zttk/3BlrQWYbNQADB7QmMzg0IFdSTCAod2lsbC5sb3JpbWVyQGNhbmFkYS5j
ZGV2LmNvbSk=
=bR4L
------------
(Opinions expressed do not represent the views of my organization.)
Ron Natalie
: r...@topaz.sensor.com (Ron Natalie) wrote:
: I thought I knew the answer to this, but maybe not. Don't you have
: to file to point in space (i.e. an intersection, VOR, etc.) from
: which you can then make an VFR approach to the airport? I didn't
: think you could use a non-IFR airport as the destination.
GTE DUAT will put in the LAT/LONG of any fix that it thinks is suspect
(i.e. airports for which there is no approach). Evidentally this is all
it takes to fake things out.
-Ron
John Prickett
Charles H Shooshan III <chas...@connix.com> wrote:
>
>Okay, I'll bite. What's the "1-2-3 rule for alternates"?
>
>--Charlie
>
if, from 1 hour before etd to 1 hour after, the
ceiling is
forcast to be
less than 2 thousand feet, or the visibility less
than 3 miles, an alternate is required to be
filed.
(also, when filing to an airport not served by an iap, a descent
from the mea to pattern altitude must be doable, if in doubt,
an alternate should be filed).
now the purpose of the filed alternate is that in the event of
lost com, this is where you are expected to go (if you miss your
intended arrival airport). in actuality, as long as you don't
lose com, you can change your mind about where to go in the
event of a missed.
hope this helps,
Linwood Ferguson
> I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
> destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
> fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
> be IFR en-route.
Certainly (presuming this is Pt 91 operations), you just have to be able to
approach and land visually, reaching VFR conditions above legal IFR altitudes
(minimum enroute, vector or whatever applies). You also must have an
alternate, if memory serves, regardless of forecast weather, but I am not
really sure of that.
Malone John
: I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
: destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
: fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
: be IFR en-route.
Good question.
First, you can choose to file a composite flight plan - IFR departure
and en route, cancelling IFR and picking up your VFR flight plan once
arriving in VFR conditions, or
you can file a destination airport without a published instrument
approach, but are then required to file an alternate (as opposed to
the 3-2-1 rule normally applicable to the requirement to file an
alternate,) or
you can file a destination airport that DOES have a published approach,
and switch to your intended destination when VFR conditions are assured.
This is covered in Part 91 subsection 169.
If you do file under the second option, it's important to note that the
forecast for your alternate must be VFR as well.
David Malone
C182/A
N3103F
William Lorimer
mal...@osprey.csrv.uidaho.edu (Malone John) wrote:
> Roy Smith (r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu) wrote:
> : I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
> : destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
> : fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
> : be IFR en-route.
> you can file a destination airport without a published instrument
> approach, but are then required to file an alternate (as opposed to
> the 3-2-1 rule normally applicable to the requirement to file an
> alternate,) or
> If you do file under the second option, it's important to note that the
> forecast for your alternate must be VFR as well.
Are you sure? Don't you mean that the forecast for the alternate must be
such that you would be able to make a legal approach? If an IFR-rated
pilot files IFR to, say, Joe Smith's Farm, which is forecast to be VFR,
and list Calgary International as his alternate, does it matter that
Calgary is forecast to be 900' ovcst if he has the training and equipment
to make an ILS approach there?
A related question - is there a restriction on how far away the alternate
can be from the intended destination? For example: suppose I'm flying from
Iceland to the Shetlands via the Faeroes. (Look, it's my fantasy ;-) I
don't have enough fuel, even with full tanks, to make it to the Shetlands
and then divert to an alternate. If I file direct to the Faeroes
(Thorshaven?) can I list Lerwick in the Shetlands as an alternate?
(Actually, now that I think of it, the guy who flew the Pelican across the
pond filed Shannon, Ireland as his destination, and listed the Azores as
his alternate, I believe.)
I guess you could get into trouble if you filed your true destination as
an "alternate", an intermediate point as your "destination", and then
"diverted" to where you wanted to go in the first place. But assuming you
weren't doing it to play fast and loose with the rules, is there any
restriction on having an alternate which is several hours away from the
destination?
--
WR Lorimer
SASE PGP Public Key: (First and Last lines removed)
------------
Version: 2.6
mQA9Ai9/vfMAAAEBgM7/4JRF7ZkIJFTJD4//jL/0gAu6vzZoHpQ2BZyE94J0Gzhv
Mn1zttk/3BlrQWYbNQADB7QmMzg0IFdSTCAod2lsbC5sb3JpbWVyQGNhbmFkYS5j
ZGV2LmNvbSk=
=bR4L
------------
"Be close-minded. Open-mindedness is the thesis and excuse of the speculative who are afraid of providing solid proofs."
Albert Y.C. Lai
(Standard Disclaimer applies.)
William LeFebvre
William Lorimer <will.l...@canada.cdev.com> wrote:
>A related question - could you use a non-IFR airport as an alternate if it
>was forecast to be VFR on arrival?
Which, your destination or your alternate?
If your destination (with approaches) was forecast to be VFR on
arrival then you don't need to file an alternate.
In order to qualify for an alternate, an airport MUST have instrument
approaches, regardless of the weather. I believe it also must have
published terminal forecasting (FT) as well.
William LeFebvre
Decision and Information Sciences
Argonne National Laboratory
lefe...@dis.anl.gov
Alan M. Marcum
> ...is it possible to file IFR to a [VFR airport]?
If you expect to be able to descend from the MEA or MVA
in VMC, and if you have a viable and legal alternate, yes.
And even do it legally.
--
Alan M. Marcum
NeXT Tech Support
a...@NeXT.COM
Chris Murphy
2nd option:
> or
>you can file a destination airport without a published instrument
>approach, but are then required to file an alternate (as opposed to
>the 3-2-1 rule normally applicable to the requirement to file an
>alternate,)
>If you do file under the second option, it's important to note that the
>forecast for your alternate must be VFR as well.
The alternate in the second option doesn't necessarily have to be VFR as
well. You need to know whether the alternate has a SIAP or not. If not,
then the forecasts must indicate that you will be able to conduct a
descent in VFR from the MEA. If it does have an SIAP, then you must look
at the approach procedure(s) for that airport to see if standard
alternate minimums apply or if there are published alternate minimums.
Some airports with SIAP's have N/A (not authorized) for using that
approach for that airport -- so you must look at the procedure(s) for that
airport to find out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Murphy
C.U. Boulder CFI- ASE, IA
Chris....@Colorado.EDU COMM-AS&MEL, IA
Peter Duniho
>
>Okay, I'll bite. What's the "1-2-3 rule for alternates"?
For you file a flight plan without an alternate airport listed in the
flight plan, you must have:
From 1 hour before to 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival,
A forecast ceiling no lower than 2000 feet, and
A forecast visibility no less than 3 (statute) miles
"1-2-3" is the mnemonic that almost all of us are taught to help us
remember that rule.
--
"The computer can't tell you the emotional story; it can
Pete Duniho give you the exact mathematical design, but what's
pe...@microsoft.com missing is the eyebrows." -- Frank Zappa
gde...@dbtech.net
>Are you sure? Don't you mean that the forecast for the alternate must be
>such that you would be able to make a legal approach? If an IFR-rated
>pilot files IFR to, say, Joe Smith's Farm, which is forecast to be VFR,
>and list Calgary International as his alternate, does it matter that
>Calgary is forecast to be 900' ovcst if he has the training and equipment
>to make an ILS approach there?
For filing an airport as as alternate, standard minimums are 800' ceiling, 2
miles visibility for non-precision approaches and 600' ceiling, 2 miles
visibility for precision approaches. So if standard minimums apply to Calgary
Int., then that airport could be filed as an alternate with no worries.
>
>A related question - is there a restriction on how far away the alternate
>can be from the intended destination? For example: suppose I'm flying from
>Iceland to the Shetlands via the Faeroes. (Look, it's my fantasy ;-) I
>don't have enough fuel, even with full tanks, to make it to the Shetlands
Let's see...to file an airport as alternate, you have to have enough fuel to make
it to the airport of first intended landing, fly to the alternate, then fly for an
additional 45 minutes at normal cruising speed.
===============
Grant Deason
Tuscaloosa, AL
db Technology Technical Support
gde...@dbtech.net
William LeFebvre
>In article <will.lorimer-1...@c6419.csd.canada.cdev.com>,
>William Lorimer <will.l...@canada.cdev.com> wrote:
>>A related question - could you use a non-IFR airport as an alternate if it
>>was forecast to be VFR on arrival?
>In order to qualify for an alternate, an airport MUST have instrument
>approaches, regardless of the weather. I believe it also must have
>published terminal forecasting (FT) as well.
This was complete hogwash. Sorry.
FAR 91.169 prescribes requirements for alternates.
91.169(c)(2):
If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter for that airport, the ceiling and visibility minimums are
those allowing descent from the MEA, approach and landing under basic
VFR.
So to answer the William Lorimer's question: yes.
Rkueck
observer that can give the current weather. if your wondering what the
alt req is for a certain airport, just look on the back of the plate and
it will give you all the info you need.
Dan Arias
In article <roy-120695...@mchip8.med.nyu.edu>,
<r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> writes:
> I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
> destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
> fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
> be IFR en-route.
As an example, yesterday summer was interrupted here in northern
California by a wayward stationary front. I was working on a Mooney
20J checkout out of Palo Alto. We we able to make it VFR to Modesto
under some rain showers but on the way back we had to file a popup
back to Palo Alto. Palo Alto has no instrument approach procedure
so we were expecting to have to shoot the approach into Hayward
nearby to dive under the cloud bases. However, Palo Alto was
reporting VFR conditions so Bay Approach just gave us radar vectors
and cut us loose when we had the airport in sight. No alternates
were specified and none were requested by ATC. (I dimly remember
some ATC guy at an FAA safety seminar saying that the alternate
information doesn't get into the system. It sounded like another
one of those "Are you sure you know what you're doing?" requirements
like the 45 minute fuel reserve.) Anyway the service was great!
The Mooney even provided my first experience with autopilot in IMC
which made life ridiculously easy. This revelation comes on the
heels of my first time shooting approaches with an HSI-equipped
Archer which was wonderful!
--Dan Arias
Cupertino, California, USA
Ron Natalie
: A related question - could you use a non-IFR airport as an alternate if it
: was forecast to be VFR on arrival?
Sure, if the alternate is forcast to have ceilings and visibilities allowing
a normal VFR descent and landing from the MEA. It's right there in the
regs for filing alterntates.
_Ron
Ron Natalie
: In article <roy-120695...@mchip8.med.nyu.edu>,
: Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
: >I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
: >destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
: >fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
: >be IFR en-route.
: sure. just remember the 1-2-3 rule for alternates, and
: keep updating yourself enroute on the weather.
:
The 1-2-3 rule DOES NOT APPLY HERE. You must file an alternate when there
is no instrument approach at your destination.
Ron Natalie
: >
: > sure. just remember the 1-2-3 rule for alternates, and
: > keep updating yourself enroute on the weather.
: Okay, I'll bite. What's the "1-2-3 rule for alternates"?
The 1-2-3 rule for alternates comes from 91.171 IFR flight plan,
required information, you are exmepted from the requirement to file
an alternate 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.
The 1 is the hour before and after, the 2 is 2,000 feet ceiling, and 3
is 3 statute miles of visibility.
However the person who brought this up is incorrect. This exclusion
only aplies if there is an instrument approach at the airport of intended
landing.
-Ron
Ron Natalie
: In article <3rlqdj$d...@newshound.uidaho.edu>,
: mal...@osprey.csrv.uidaho.edu (Malone John) wrote:
: > you can file a destination airport without a published instrument
: > approach, but are then required to file an alternate (as opposed to
: > the 3-2-1 rule normally applicable to the requirement to file an
: > alternate,) or
: > If you do file under the second option, it's important to note that the
: > forecast for your alternate must be VFR as well.
: Are you sure? Don't you mean that the forecast for the alternate must be
: such that you would be able to make a legal approach? If an IFR-rated
: pilot files IFR to, say, Joe Smith's Farm, which is forecast to be VFR,
: and list Calgary International as his alternate, does it matter that
: Calgary is forecast to be 900' ovcst if he has the training and equipment
: to make an ILS approach there?
The "as well" is confusiont. An alternate field with no SIAP, must not only
be VFR, but forecast to be able to make a VFR descent from the MEA. There's
no requirement that there be any kind of specific weather at the destination.
_Ron
Ron Natalie
: In order to qualify for an alternate, an airport MUST have instrument
: approaches, regardless of the weather. I believe it also must have
: published terminal forecasting (FT) as well.
Incorrect, it needs not have an instrument approach nor terminal forecasting
(which would trully leave out a lot of airports because only a few issue FT's).
He're sthe rules from 91.159:
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by
the Administrator, no person may include an alternate airport in an IFR
flight plan unless current weather forecasts indicate that, at the estimated
time of arrival at the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility at that
airport will be at or above the following alternate airport weather
minimums:
(1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter for that airport, the alternate airport minimums specified in
that procedure or, if none are so specified, the following minimums:
(i) Precision approach procedure: Ceiling 600 feet and visibility 2 statute
miles.
(ii) Nonprecision approach procedure: Ceiling 800 feet and visibility 2
statute miles.
(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter for that airport, the ceiling and visibility minimums are those
allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
David E Allen
: under some rain showers but on the way back we had to file a popup
: back to Palo Alto. Palo Alto has no instrument approach procedure
But that doesn't mean an alternate wasn't required. Folks have been busted
for not specifying an alternate in popups when one was required by the regs.
Remember, it's not ATC's job to ask for an alternate in a popup any more than
it's FSS's job to ask for an alternate when filing a full flight plan. It's
up to us and the regs to determine if it's needed.
dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Steve Riccio
>From: mal...@osprey.csrv.uidaho.edu (Malone John)
>Subject: Re: Filing IFR to an airport with no instrument approach?
>Date: 14 Jun 1995 05:00:35 GMT
>Roy Smith (r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu) wrote:
>: I should probably know this, but is it possible to file IFR to a
>: destination with no instrument approaches? Assume for the moment you
>: fully expect the destination to be VFR when you get there, but you want to
>: be IFR en-route.
>Good question.
>First, you can choose to file a composite flight plan - IFR departure
>and en route, cancelling IFR and picking up your VFR flight plan once
>arriving in VFR conditions, or
>you can file a destination airport without a published instrument
>approach, but are then required to file an alternate (as opposed to
>the 3-2-1 rule normally applicable to the requirement to file an
>alternate,) or
>you can file a destination airport that DOES have a published approach,
>and switch to your intended destination when VFR conditions are assured.
>This is covered in Part 91 subsection 169.
>If you do file under the second option, it's important to note that the
>forecast for your alternate must be VFR as well.
>David Malone
>C182/A
>N3103F
I thought that you could file a destination that does NOT have a published
approach as long as you could ensure that you could get off the airway
(MEA,MVA) and maintain VFR conditions. You could cancel IFR at any time as
long as in VFR condtions. There would be no need to file a composite flight
plan, but you could. Please correct me if I am incorrect on this.
Steve Riccio
Walter Murray
: ... We we able to make it VFR to Modesto
: under some rain showers but on the way back we had to file a popup
: No alternates
: were specified and none were requested by ATC. ...
I seem to recall something about somebody getting busted for filing
a popup and not specifying an alternate when one was required. Anyone
remember the details?
Walter
Chris Murphy
Me:
>> you can file a destination airport without a published instrument
>> approach, but are then required to file an alternate (as opposed to
>> the 3-2-1 rule normally applicable to the requirement to file an
>> alternate,) or
>> If you do file under the second option, it's important to note that the
>> forecast for your alternate must be VFR as well.
>Are you sure? Don't you mean that the forecast for the alternate must be
>such that you would be able to make a legal approach?
Well, your second option was that the destination did not have an SIAP,
and the alternate did not have an SIAP. 91.169 (b) implies weather at
the destination is irrelevant, and that an alternate is require in the
flight plan because FAR 97 doesn't prescribe an SIAP for that airport
(destination).
If you choose to use an alternate airport which does not have an SIAP,
then the airport weather minimums for that airport are "allowing descent
from the MEA, approach and landing under basic VFR." In order to put
that airport down as an alternate, you must follow 91.169 (c) which says
the forecasts must indicate that at the time of arrival, the weather will
be at or above that airports weather minimums.
So there is a difference between the conditions necessary for filing, and
the conditions necessary for landing once you are there. In order to
file IFR and use an airport with no SIAP as an alternate; the current
forecasts must indicate that at your time of arrival, you must be able to
descent from the MEA, approach, and land in basic VFR.
In order to *land* once you get there, you must be able to accept a
visual approach into that airport. If you are lost comm, you will need
to be able to do this from the MEA -- that is you can't be IMC below the
MEA. If you aren't lost comm, you will likely get vectors for a lower
altitude based on the MVA for that area.
> If an IFR-rated
>pilot files IFR to, say, Joe Smith's Farm, which is forecast to be VFR,
>and list Calgary International as his alternate, does it matter that
>Calgary is forecast to be 900' ovcst if he has the training and equipment
>to make an ILS approach there?
No because Calgary Intn'l has an SIAP. Actually it has several precision
SIAP's. This means that the forecasted weather minimums for that airport
are either standard for a precision SIAP (600-2), or the procedures
specify that there are published (non-standard) alternate minimums. In
order to use Calgary Intn'l as an alternate in this case, the weather
forecasts must indicate that at the time of arrival the airport will have
conditions better or equal to those alternate minimums (most likely
standard).
However, once you get there, the minima on the SIAP is what prevails for
you to actually conduct your instrument approach into Calgary.
Does that make sense?
>A related question - is there a restriction on how far away the alternate
>can be from the intended destination? For example: suppose I'm flying from
>Iceland to the Shetlands via the Faeroes. (Look, it's my fantasy ;-) I
>don't have enough fuel, even with full tanks, to make it to the Shetlands
>and then divert to an alternate.
You must be able to fly from your departure point, to the destination,
then to the alternate and 45 minutes thereafter. That is, you must have
that much fuel. If you don't, then you have picked a poor alternate,
because you couldn't use it anyway if you run out of fuel before you get
there.
>I guess you could get into trouble if you filed your true destination as
>an "alternate", an intermediate point as your "destination", and then
>"diverted" to where you wanted to go in the first place. But assuming you
>weren't doing it to play fast and loose with the rules, is there any
>restriction on having an alternate which is several hours away from the
>destination?
No. So long as you can (fuel wise) fly to the destination, to the
alternate, and then 45 minutes thereafter. If you have enough fuel to do
that, then you are OK.
However, you have raised an interesting point. If you get to the
destination, and you decide that you want to go to your alternate (for
weather reasons or whatever), you are supposed to call flight service and
file a new IFR flight plan. You currently do not have a route or a
clearance to your alternate. This means you need to file from the
original destination (now call the departure point) to the alternate (now
called the destination), and if necessary you must file a new alternate.
So you now are in the same situation. You have to go from the departure
point (old destination) to the destination (old alternate), and if you
are required to file an alternate, then to that alternate, and thereafter
for 45 minutes. So as far as fuel goes, you REALLY need to be careful on
the alternate you pick, the weather it will have, and the location of
other nearby airports you could use.
Malone John
: William Lorimer (will.l...@canada.cdev.com) wrote:
: : In article <3rlqdj$d...@newshound.uidaho.edu>,
: : mal...@osprey.csrv.uidaho.edu (Malone John) wrote:
: : > If you do file under the second option, it's important to note that the
: : > forecast for your alternate must be VFR as well.
: : Are you sure? Don't you mean that the forecast for the alternate must be
: : such that you would be able to make a legal approach? If an IFR-rated
: : pilot files IFR to, say, Joe Smith's Farm, which is forecast to be VFR,
: : and list Calgary International as his alternate, does it matter that
: : Calgary is forecast to be 900' ovcst if he has the training and equipment
: : to make an ILS approach there?
: The "as well" is confusiont. An alternate field with no SIAP, must not only
: be VFR, but forecast to be able to make a VFR descent from the MEA. There's
: no requirement that there be any kind of specific weather at the destination.
: _Ron
Yes, you are correct. I am guilty of wording my original response loosely.
But, one must still be careful in using the non-SIAP facility as an
alternate. If you make Calgary your primary, and Joe Smith's Farm your
alternate - remember that Joe Smith's Farm probably doesn't have weather
reporting on the field. You are therefore forced to rely on the area
forecasts. In the rolling hills and mountains of Alberta, I'd be very
reluctant if the area forecast was calling for 1500/3 at the ETA.
David Malone
Julian Scarfe
will.l...@canada.cdev.com (William Lorimer) wrote:
> But assuming you
> weren't doing it to play fast and loose with the rules, is there any
> restriction on having an alternate which is several hours away from the
> destination?
Flying magazine described one of the first passenger-carrying flights of
the Airbus 340 about a year ago. It was flying from Newark to Frankfurt.
The filed alternate? The captain made a point of saying that legally it
could have been Newark (though I don't think he actually wrote it on the
FPL -- could have been embarrassing and expensive in the event of comms
failure :-) .
Julian Scarfe
ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk