Alternate Minimums NA
John Clonts
plate. May I use it as an alternate if the forecast conditions at ETA are
such that descent from MVA and landing can be made VFR?
I read 91.167 and 91.169 and couldn't tell for sure. But my common sense
tells me that you should be able to use the airport just as you would an
airport with that had no IAP to begin with...
Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
John Clonts
John Clonts <jcl...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:amqlf...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> An airport has a "[Black Triangle] A - NA' designation on the NACO
approach
> plate. May I use it as an alternate if the forecast conditions at ETA are
> such that descent from MVA and landing can be made VFR?
CORRECTION meant MEA, not MVA :)
Bob Gardner
anyone will pick up on the fact that you have filed a bad alternate unless
there is a problem with your flight.
Bob Gardner
"John Clonts" <jcl...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:amqlf...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Gordon Young
I have also wondered about the NA designation. It is defined in the current
terminal procedures publications as, "NA Alternate minimums are Not
Authorized due to unmonitored facility or absence of weather reporting
service".
With that definition in mind, there are numerous airports that are monitored
and have weather reporting services, and in addition, have procedures that
are listed as NA. Go figure!
You do have the option of canceling your IFR clearance in the air, while in
VFR conditions, and land at an airport that is VFR.
Gordon
John Clonts
"Gordon Young" <gyou...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iq8k9.28565$kk7.5...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> John,
>
> I have also wondered about the NA designation. It is defined in the
current
> terminal procedures publications as, "NA Alternate minimums are Not
> Authorized due to unmonitored facility or absence of weather reporting
> service".
> With that definition in mind, there are numerous airports that are
monitored
> and have weather reporting services, and in addition, have procedures that
> are listed as NA. Go figure!
I wonder if there is ever a case where one approach at an airport not
authorized for alternate but another approach at the same airport IS
authorized for alternate?
ArtP
<gyou...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>You do have the option of canceling your IFR clearance in the air, while in
>VFR conditions, and land at an airport that is VFR.
But you don't have the option of listing that airport in your flight
plan as an alternate.
Mike Granby
> With that definition in mind, there are numerous
> airports that are monitored [...] and in addition,
> have procedures that are listed as NA.
Surely it's not whether the airport is monitored?
It's whether the appropriate navaid is monitored.
--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane
Mike Granby
> I wonder if there is ever a case where one approach at an
> airport not authorized for alternate but another approach
> at the same airport IS authorized for alternate?
Looking at a couple of airports I use quite often, I notice that RVL has two
approaches. The LOC-6 is listed as having non-standard alternate minimums,
whereas the GPS-24 is listed as NA as an alternate. Similarly, LNS has eight
approaches, six of which have non-standard minimums, and two of which are
marked NA, these being the GPS-8 and the VOR/DME-8. Anyone care to explain
what's going on here?
Ron Natalie
"Gordon Young" <gyou...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:iq8k9.28565$kk7.5...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> John,
>
> You do have the option of canceling your IFR clearance in the air, while in
> VFR conditions, and land at an airport that is VFR.
>
You don't even have to cancel IFR? The only thing that the NA applies
to is listing it as the required alternate on your FLIGHT PLAN (and thus
needing to have fuel reserves to make it there + 45).
John T
may explain why your GPS approach plate is marked NA. I don't know why the
VOR/DME approach would be NA, though. Perhaps a misprint?
--
John T
http://www.novadevgroup.com/TknoFlyer
__________
"Mike Granby" <mi...@mikeg.net> wrote in message
news:up299g5...@corp.supernews.com...
Ron Natalie
>
> > I wonder if there is ever a case where one approach at an
> > airport not authorized for alternate but another approach
> > at the same airport IS authorized for alternate?
>
> Looking at a couple of airports I use quite often, I notice that RVL has two
> approaches. The LOC-6 is listed as having non-standard alternate minimums,
> whereas the GPS-24 is listed as NA as an alternate
A lot of GPS approaches are marked NA (even when there are non GPS
approaches that aren't marked as such at the same field). Are GPS approaches
generally precluded from being alternates? I know if your destination relies on
GPS you must have a GPS-free alternate, but if you're going somewhere with
a conventional NAVAID can you list a GPS-approach airport as an alternate?
(No GPS, yet).
Robert Moore
> I know if your destination relies on GPS you must have a
> GPS-free alternate,
Not a true statement! :-) If you require an alternate, it must
have a non-GPS approach reguardless of the type approaches at the
destination.
From the AIM (and backed up by the AFM supplements)
(h) A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport
when one is required. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot
must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME
or ADF avionics as appropriate.
Bob Moore
Ron Natalie
"Robert Moore" <rmoo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:Xns92946F00BD4FArm...@65.32.1.8...
> "Ron Natalie" wrote
>
> > I know if your destination relies on GPS you must have a
> > GPS-free alternate,
>
> Not a true statement! :-) If you require an alternate, it must
> have a non-GPS approach reguardless of the type approaches at the
> destination.
That's what I meant (you must be able to fly an approach at the
airport without using the GPS, not that there can't be any GPS at
the airport).
> (h) A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport
> when one is required. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot
> must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME
> or ADF avionics as appropriate.
Thanks. I couldn't remember if that applied only if the destination approach
involved GPS or to all alternates. Like I said, it hasn't bothered me yet, as my
money is going into a new engine right now and not an IFR GPS.
JerryK
both. You need some sort of weather information for baro setting and the
navaids have to work.
"Mike Granby" <mi...@mikeg.net> wrote in message
news:up28v1n...@corp.supernews.com...
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Bob Gardner
because the outer marker is not monitored...the VOR approaches are not
affected.
Bob Gardner
"John Clonts" <jcl...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pE8k9.3006$121.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Stan Gosnell
> I wonder if there is ever a case where one approach at an
> airport not authorized for alternate but another approach
> at the same airport IS authorized for alternate?
This is common. Usually when some navaids aren't monitored
because the tower closes. Center may continue to monitor some
navaids.
--
Regards,
Stan
Michael
> anyone will pick up on the fact that you have filed a bad alternate unless
> there is a problem with your flight.
Not authorized refers to the approach, not the airport.
> "John Clonts" <jcl...@hot.rr.com> wrote
> > An airport has a "[Black Triangle] A - NA' designation on the NACO
> approach
> > plate. May I use it as an alternate if the forecast conditions at ETA are
> > such that descent from MVA and landing can be made VFR?
> >
> > I read 91.167 and 91.169 and couldn't tell for sure. But my common sense
> > tells me that you should be able to use the airport just as you would an
> > airport with that had no IAP to begin with...
Your common sense answer is correct. ANY airport may be used as an
alternate. If there is no published approach, the weather conditions
must be such that a descent from the MEA and landing may be
accomplished under VFR. If there is an instrument approach to the
airport, the alternate minima for that approach apply (either standard
or non-standard). If alternate minima for an approach are not
authorized, it's as if the approach did not exist with respect to
airport selection as an alternate.
Michael
Teacherjh
True. However not any airport may be FILED as an alternate. "Alternate
minimums" refer to filing. This is supposed to ensure that you have a good
"out" if you need one. But, once you actually need an out, any out will work.
Jose
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
John Clonts
"Teacherjh" <teac...@aol.comspam.not> wrote in message
news:20020926191901...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> >> ANY airport may be used as an alternate.
>
> True. However not any airport may be FILED as an alternate. "Alternate
> minimums" refer to filing. This is supposed to ensure that you have a
good
> "out" if you need one. But, once you actually need an out, any out will
work.
>
> Jose
Can you give an example of an airport then that can NEVER be filed as an
alternate? Remember, the context of my original question included VFR
condintions from the MEA down to the field at the alternate at the ETA.
Thanks,
John
Yves
> Can you give an example of an airport then that can NEVER be filed as an
> alternate? Remember, the context of my original question included VFR
> condintions from the MEA down to the field at the alternate at the ETA.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
Off course you can file any airport as an alternate.
Just keep in mind the airport's capabilities at ETA:
VFR from MEA/800-2/600-2/something-else [talking part 91 here] depending
on what facilities you can consider: an IAP denoted as NA can thus not be
considered for *that* (ie: planning) purpose.
Yves.
Yves
as an alternate. filing an alternate is just you complying with the
legalities of IFR planning, nor, do I think, does the FSS person really
care what you filed as alternate. It becomes an issue when you became the
subject of S&R.
Once you're airborne, it becomes an operational issue, and you can
"change" your alternate to whatever becomes necessary at *that* time.
Yves.
Michael
>
> True. However not any airport may be FILED as an alternate.
Please give an example of an airport that may not be filed as an alternate.
Michael
Yves
> Date: 27 Sep 2002 10:58:45 -0700
> From: Michael <crwd...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
> Subject: Re: Alternate Minimums NA
See post 1351.
Regards,
Yves E. Hoebeke
CP ASMEL AI CFI-I DX
Ron Natalie
"Yves" <saul...@SDF.NOSPAM.ORG> wrote in message news:Pine.NEB.4.44.02092...@sdf.lonestar.org...
> See post 1351.
>
The numbers on posts are local to your particular news server. The above citation is
worthless.