135 Alernate Filing

[avbug]

If FAR part 135 doesn't require alternates then could somebody please explain 135.219, 135.221, and 135.223

Okey-dokey. 135.219 does not speak to alternates; it simply stipulates that you may not depart under IFR unless the destination at ETA will be at or above IFR landing minimums.

135.221 does not require an alternate, but only stipulates that one cannot designate an alternate under Part 135 unless the weather will be at or above minimums at ETA.

135.223 does not require an alternate. It stipulates the conditions under which an airport may be designated as an alternate.

The inference provided by 135.223(a)(2) suggests that an alternate is required. However, relief is provided by 135.223(b) which stipulates that an alternate is not required provided that certain meteorological conditions exist. Only when those conditions exist is an alternate required, and this is not specific to part 135.

But, seeing as you asked, an alternate IS required by 135.217, for takeoff, under specific conditions named therein.

... However, stating an alternate during a briefing would be considered "filed" as the FSS is a part of the ATC system and everything is officially recorded.

Absolutely incorrect. Who told you that? Filing is what it is. Simply making a statement to ATC is NOT filing. If you file, you file flight plan, or ammend the plan. Quipping that you're goign to use an airport as an alterate is NOT filing that airport as an alternate.

Bear in mind that regardless of what is filed as an alternate in your flight plan, you are under NO obligation to use that airport for an "alternate."

I don't think the alternate even appears on the controllers flight strip so my only concern is the lawyers.

You are correct, as previously stated here that the filed alternate does not appear to the controller. You are incorrect in thinking that making a statement to a FSS briefer cures any legal woes you believe you might have in filing an alternate. T'aint so.

They can do it, but they have to call the data center at the ARTCC where the flt plan is stored. If they're busy don't expect them to offer to do that. So really the only way to add an alternate is to either file a new flt plan, or tell ATC in the air.

A briefer will always do this if you ask. Don't wait for someone to volunteer. The briefer is not a mind reader, and isn't going to change, modify, or interfere in your flight plan. That's not their place, and they won't do it. You want a change made to your flight plan, call FSS and request that the change be made. Not a problem.

Telling ATC in the air won't change the filed plan, as ATC doesn't have access to the full flight plan. You're spinning your wheels, there. Further, that information isn't going to get passed down the line, nor will it be used to modify your filed flight plan.

Don't attempt to file a new flight plan. You'll cause all sorts of problems, not the least of which is confusion between the old and the new. If your'e going to do that, cancel out the old one by a positive request, but you should still anticipate that you may have problems with more than one plan entered. Don't file a new one. Modify the one that's in the system. It's easy. One phone call takes care of it.

The same thing applies if you're filed but want to move your departure time. An example of that might be a lifegaurd flight waiting for a patient, or a corporate pilot waiting for a passenger...no telling for sure when they'll show up. An hour later you find that you need to bump your departure time back two more hours. Simply call FSS, and advise. A moment of waiting, and FSS will confirm for you that the change has been made. It's easy, it works, and the FSS specialist will not refuse to help you. Nor does the specialist have that option.

 

[CaSyndrm]

Wow how have I survived all these years that have included 121 and 135.

Good luck explaining to the fed reviewing your paperwork during a line check or recurrent why you don't have to have a alternate .

 

[avbug]

I just did, brightspark.

Are you submitting that on a clear CAVU day with a destination foreast to be clear, that an alternate is required under Part 135?

If so, can you cite a reference that makes such a suggestion?

I just proved through the regulation that this is not the case. Can you counter that?

Neither can the FAA. No problem at all explaining that to an inspector.

 

[CaSyndrm]

I don't have the energy to type long detailed posts like AV so frequently I give people credit for being able to figure things out for themselves.

Just because a company operates under FAR 135, or 121 does not preclude them from FAR'S 61 and 91 among others. Therefore I still believe an alternate must be filed when required.

 

[dispatchguy]

At least for a 121 operation, my dispatch release includes my designated and "filed" alternate.

It is the crew's responsibility to tell ATC what that is, when it looks like they'll need to head that way.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

If this isn't addressed in your opspecs, your'e Chief Pilot and POI should be fired.

 

[captdaddy]

Common Sense

I'm with CaSyndrm...It's okay to use some common sense here. I've seen pilots get so wrapped up around the FARs that they forget that it's okay to look out the window and avoid the mountains...even though there is no FAR requiring it.

 

[avbug]

What foolishness.

Unless specific meteorological conditions exist, there is no requirement under Part 91 or 135 to file an alternate in a flight plan (VFR or IFR). Nor is there a particular reason to do so, if it's not required. What do you suppose it does for you??

Part 61 doesn't address the topic at all.

In what possible way would one even begin to draw a parallel between looking outside (which is required by regulation under all circumstances, incidentally), to filing an alternate when it's not required by meteorological conditions at the destination?

Wrapped around the regulation? CaSyndrm specifically enquired about the relevence of three subparts to Part 135, to prove a point he attempted to make; that Part 135 requires a filed alternate in a flight plan. Those specific subparts were addressed to show that two of the three don't even address an alternate, and the third doesn't require it. Asked, and answered.

Next, rather than concede that it isn't required, CaSyndrm attempted to assert authority based on prior experience under Parts 121 and 135...the idea being that because he has experience under both parts, then of course his prior incorrect assertion must instead be correct. Again, wrong.

Just because a company operates under FAR 135, or 121 does not preclude them from FAR'S 61 and 91 among others. Therefore I still believe an alternate must be filed when required.

Then he states that folks should just figure it out for themselves. He then goes on to appeal to Parts 61 and 91 and "others" to show that filing an alternate is required. It is not. An alternate is only required under certain weather conditions, is not addressed at all by part 61, and is not a requirement under Part 91, except under those same weather conditions. I note that in this last statement, the catch-all "when required" was added. That is the only correct part of the statement.

As for operations under Parts 121 or 135, the truth is that yes, in many cases pilots operating under these parts are not subject to the requirements of much of Part 61 or 91.

Anything else?

 

[CaSyndrm]

Yes, one more thing. I think you need to get laid. It might help you lighten up.

In your efforts to answer things in such detail by picking apart posts line by line you miss the big picture some are making. I only used other FAR's as an example of companies responsibilities to comply. This in no way meant 61 requires alternates. Anybody with your advanced reading and writing skills should of been able to get that. Also, you keep addressing the fact that if i'ts CAVOC no alternate is needed. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, I don't think the original post or follow ups had anything to do with clear days.

I'm quickly remembering why people on the real airline boards years ago didn't like you and also, I'm remembering some lengthy discussions as to your qualifications and if you were even a pilot back then.

 

[captdaddy]

So you're saying that if I am flying an airplane under part 135, that I cannot be violated for FAR 91.13?

Parts 61 and 91 are underlying to 135 and 121. Parts 61 and 91 must be complied with by all pilots. 121 and 135 just provide additional requirements.