135.223 Alternate required

[scubabri]

135.223 requires 1500 feet above a circling MDA or if there is no circling, then 1500 above a DA or 2000 HAA.

Is visibility required for both the circling and the non-circling or just the non-circling?

Can anyone cite legal references?? I have an ongoing discussion regarding this with one of the other pilots.

Unfortunatly, the federal register for this rule is not online or I would look there.

thanks

Brian

 

[JumpJetter]

Sec. 135.223

IFR: Alternate airport requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports or forecasts or any combination of them) to--
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
(b) 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 one hour before and after the estimated time of arrival, the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that--
(1) The ceiling will be at least 1,500 feet above the lowest circling approach MDA; or
(2) If a circling instrument approach is not authorized for the airport, the ceiling will be at least 1,500 feet above the lowest published minimum or 2,000 feet above the airport elevation, whichever is higher; and
(3) Visibility for that airport is forecast to be at least three miles, or two miles more than the lowest applicable visibility minimums, whichever is the greater, for the instrument approach procedure to be used at the destination airport.


...actually now that I re-read it, I'm not sure
talk amongst yourselves...

 

[SDCFI]

Legal reference, no. But common sense (which the FAA usually lacks) should tell you that visibility is req'd in both cases. I read it as you need (1) or (2), and (3); not (1), or (2) and (3). Just imagine the conversation with the FAA inspector if you have some kind of incident (fuel emergency) and they ask you why you filed to an alt with less than the req'd vis. I don't think they're gonna buy that the reg reads if you have at least 1500 above the lowest circling MDA you don't need the visibility in (3). The 135 motto is "how much rope do you want to hang yourself?" Try not to.

 

[scubabri]

Still need a legal reference, because common sense is arguable in most cases. I need something hard from the FAA or someplace that says that I need vis in both cases.

Legal reference, no. But common sense (which the FAA usually lacks) should tell you that visibility is req'd in both cases. I read it as you need (1) or (2), and (3); not (1), or (2) and (3). Just imagine the conversation with the FAA inspector if you have some kind of incident (fuel emergency) and they ask you why you filed to an alt with less than the req'd vis. I don't think they're gonna buy that the reg reads if you have at least 1500 above the lowest circling MDA you don't need the visibility in (3). The 135 motto is "how much rope do you want to hang yourself?" Try not to.

 

[SDCFI]

Still need a legal reference, because common sense is arguable in most cases. I need something hard from the FAA or someplace that says that I need vis in both cases.

Call your local FSDO. Aside from the Chief Counsel or whoever it is that has the "official" interpretation that's the best you're gonna get.

 

[JumpJetter]

It looks like to me you need (1) OR (2).....AND (3).