135 Alernate Filing

[SDCFI]

Question. My company uses center-stored flight plans, so of course there is no alternate filed there. While 135 doesn't require the filing of an alternate (it only lists the fuel requirements), 91.169 does require it for any IFR flt plan unless the wx is above alt req's. I have not, nor have I known anyone who added an alternate to their center store when the wx was down. We don't have dispatch releases either, so that won't cover it. I'm wondering how we're covered legally not having filed an alternate if one is req'd, and also if I lose comm and wind up going missed at the dest because it's below mins, is ATC just going to clear the airspace in all directions for 100 miles? Where do they expect me to go?

 

[nosehair]

About filing an alternate

Sounds like a serious glitch in your company operations if you don't have a procedure to add an alternate to the stored/canned flight plan. Maybe no one wants to confront the "mechanical/procedural" part of this, and just let things roll as is. The Arrival ATC does NOT get any info on your "filed alternate". Lost comm does not mean you must go there. You must use your own best judgement about where to go based on actual weather conditions at the time. Even when you have radio, and go actual missed, ATC will ask your intentions. Telling them you want to go to your "filed alternate" tells them nothing - they will just have to come back with "...and where would that be, mmmh?"
So, writing in an airport in the flight plan box marked "Alternate" only provides a record of the fact that there was a legal alternate airport within your fuel range at the time you took off. Deciding where to go in a real missed approach is completely up to you at that time, and should be based on current, existing weather and fuel conditions existing at that time.

 

[whatwasthat?]

Our Op-Specs require an alternate based on 135 formulas. I always call FSS for a standard brief and to ask the specialist to enter my alternate, if necessary in the remarks. Since we too use canned flight plans they are not accessable. This way I'm on record for having checked the weather, NOTAMS and having an alternate on file. Basically CYA.

 

[avbug]

Your canned flight plan most certainly is accessible. You need only identify the changes that you would like the flight service specialist to make, and it's done. Not a problem.

As for filing an alternate; it's a legal requirement, but ATC won't know what you've filed; they can't see it, and it will take them some time to come up with your actual flight plan. When going missed in the real world, ATC will ask you about your intentions. If you're NoRad, then proceed as best you might. If you're in a radar environment, ATC will be watching your primary return, and if you have a functioning electrical system, your secondary return as well, and will track your actions.

If not, simply proceed as best you can decide given the latest information to either VFR conditions, or a viable alternate. It may or may not be what you filed; that's really irrelevant. ATC won't know what you filed, anyway. Conditions change. Choose an alternate based on the best information you have, and go to it.

 

[SDCFI]

In the year that I've been here at AMF no one has ever mentioned filing an alternate. I even asked the instructor during indoc when we were covering IFR ops what to do about filing one with a canned flt pln. He said it doesn't matter because like you guys said ATC doesn't know what it is anyway. While true, that obviously didn't answer my question from a legality standpoint, but his initials are BS and his tie doesn't quite come down to his beltline so you know how much I value his input (inside joke BTW). Guess it seems to be one of those things that won't come up unless the poop hits the fan and something bad happens, in which case hope you did CYA. Thanks all for your info.

 

[Dustin H]

SDCFI, I'm glad you brought this up because I had the same problem a few years ago when I was flying under canned flight plans. I'm curious to see what solutions might be brought up from others

This is what I did..

Calling flight service was absolutely no help as they said they couldn't access the canned flight plan to make changes.

I felt like my only option was to tell ATC once I got airborne to make a note to the flt plan for what alternate I wanted. I guess that may not have been my only option, but it was a quick and dirty solution that worked for me at the time. The only problem I ran into was most of the controllers acted like making the change to my flt plan put them out. Oh well, like mentioned above CYA.

 

[SDCFI]

Dustin - I've called FSS before too, to change the departure time of a canned flt plan to accomodate a late departure. 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. I've never heard of anyone having a problem with this, as far as getting in trouble with the FAA, so maybe it's a non-issue.

 

[dispatchguy]

I think its a non-issue, for as a 121 dispatcher, the filing message that my flight planning computer sends to center doesnt tell them what my filed alternates are either.

 

[whatwasthat?]

Briefers have told me that only the FSS where your flight plan was entered can access it (or even look at it for that matter). So you could call that one... 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.
I don't think the alternate even appears on the controllers flight strip so my only concern is the lawyers.

 

[CaSyndrm]

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

 

[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.

 

[whatwasthat?]

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

Amen, brother.

 

[avbug]

Yes, one more thing. I think you need to get laid.

Ah, and here I thought that your arguements had degenerated as far from the facts as they could...after trying assertions such as it must be right because of your experience, or it must be right because of "other parts," now we're down to "get laid."

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

Good idea, you have here. When an operations inspector is reviewing your paperwork, use that all-inclusive intellectual brain-buster. Tell them to get laid. Tell them it might help them lighten up. You're one smart cookie, you are. Ouch.

But wait, there's more. Still unable to deal with the issue at hand (not surprisingly, one regarding regulation in a form dedicated to regulatory issues), you dredge up...

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.

So it's to be get laid, you're not a real pilot now, is it? No "your mother dresses you funny," or "I know you are, but what am I?" Your rationality bowls down the very pillars reason, laying waste to all common sense before it. I can scarcely wait to see what you come up with next.

As for "real airline boards," which would those be? I don't recall ever having posted on, or even read a "real airline" board. By default, your would be suggesting then, that this is a fake airline board? Or perhaps just an airline plank? Or a real aviation board that defers to higher sources for exalted airline types?

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

I am? Perhaps you might quote the place where I said that. I don't recall having done so...until you attempted to put the words in my mouth.

Point of fact; you can certainly be violated for careless and reckless operation, regardless of what part or subpart you're using for operational guidance.

Parts 61 and 91 are underlying to 135 and 121.

Actually, no. Parts 61 and 91 provide guidance for their respective areas, and stand alone. They are not "underlying" to anything. However, pilots operating under the requirements provided certain certificate holders (eg, Parts 121, 135, etc) are provided alterations or relief from certain requirements under Part 61, and Part 91. Operations Specifications, for example, permit different instrument approach and alternate criteria. Pilots undergoing regular proficiency checks under parts 135 and part 121 need not undergo flight reviews, may receive under certain circumstances automatic flight instructor renewals, need not meet the general recency of experience requirements for certain of Part 61, etc.

The regulations located under 14 CFR 121 and 135 do not merely add to those found under Parts 61 or 91, but in many cases alter them or change them due to the nature of the operations involved.

Can you be the object of enforcement action for violation of 91.13? You betcha. Too bad there isn't provision for enforcement action for failure to understand the regulation.

 

[CaSyndrm]

Wow, once again Bug picks things apart but misses the point and doesn't address the credible critisism of his earlier blunders. I would enjoy spending some time in your world but as of yet have only driven by and waived.

 

[avbug]

Credible? No. You have no credibility, whatsoever. In order to do that, you must be right at least part of the time, and then not by accident. That just isn't you.

Earlier blunders? Which might those be? Be specific, now.

Wave? Why don't you simply come on in, brightspark?

Gotta tell you. I wouldn't enjoy you in my world. Then again, I wouldn't let you in my cockpit, either.

 

[captdaddy]

The subject of this thread should be changed. I don't think the requirement of filing an alternate on a flight plan under part 135 is the issue anymore. At least I have lost interest.

It is amazing to me, however, how the text of one's message can so easily personify one's arrogance.

The condescending attitude has shrouded the facts--they become insignificant when you are insulting somebody.

What fun is it to always be right, when because of your method of delivery, you sacrifice comradery.

P.S. To convey that you have flown "all" airplanes and hold "all" ratings raises a brow.

 

[avbug]

Camaraderie. The implication in suggesting sacrifice of camaraderie is that it is desirable in the first place, is it not?

You speak of arrogance, yet what greater arrogance might you express than to suggest that I might wish camaraderie with you or any other here? Perhaps you come here looking for friendship, but make no assumption of any other.

I am correctly under the assumption that this forum discusses regulation, to which end I have done. If that wrinkles your sensibilities, what is that to me? I discussed the issue at hand, and sacrified nothing. I wouldn't waste my time shaking the hand of casyndrm; your post serves nothing more than to convince me the same of you.

Raise your brows all you like. Beat them to death if it pleases you. Then go somewhere else for your "comradery."

 

[nosehair]

Camaraderie

Yes, Camaraderie, Avbug. Webster's Dictionary: "Good will and lighthearted rapport between or among friends."
Wilbur and Orville didn't do what they did strictly in the interest of science and technical/regulatory perfection. Sure, they enjoyed the challange of the attempt to achieve these qualities, just as we do here on this board. My main objective here is to continue to learn and improve my technical knowledge/skill, but it is also the sharing of information with others who we become familiar with, thereby creating a "camaraderie", or level of knowledge/experience that cannot be achieved in the company of those who would not share experience on a level of personal mutual respect that promotes learning.

 

[mavrck]

yep, the op-specs for your company should state what is required for the filed alternate weather to be. Its usually based on what types of approaches are available at that airport you intend on filing as the alternate. Usually stated like " if 1 approach available, add 400 and 1 to the lowest circling minimum. If more than 1 approach avail, add 200 and 1 to lowest....."

Check your op specs. I doubt the Feds would have approved your op specs unless it was defined.

 

[mavrck]

lol... hope you got your answer you needed outta all of this SDCFI before the water got muddy in the thread.

 

[SDCFI]

You pretty much learn to wade through the "mud" around here, comes with the territory. Talk about a can of worms eh?