Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

91.169

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Checks

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2001
Posts
447
If the airport I want to select as an alternate only has one instrument approach and that approach is A NA(not available for use as an alternate), can I still use it as an alternate if the weatehr is CAVU??

91.169
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minima. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may include an alternate airport in an IFR flight plan unless appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, 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 weather minima:
(1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator, for that airport, the following minima:
(i) For aircraft other than helicopters: The alternate airport minima specified in that procedure, or if none are specified the following standard approach minima:
(A) For a precision approach procedure. Ceiling 600 feet and visibility 2 statute miles.
(B) For a nonprecision approach procedure. Ceiling 800 feet and visibility 2 statute miles.
(ii) For helicopters: Ceiling 200 feet above the minimum for the approach to be flown, and visibility at least 1 statute mile but never less than the minimum visibility for the approach to be flown, and
(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter and no special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
(d) Cancellation. When a flight plan has been activated, the pilot in command, upon canceling or completing the flight under the flight plan, shall notify an FAA Flight Service Station or ATC facility.
 
I guess if the weather is forecast to be CAVU, you can list your cousin's backyard as an alternate (assuming the other conditions for the application of the 1-2-3 alternate exemption rule apply). But it wouldn't satisfy the IFR requirement for one.
 
I'm going to get lit up if I'm wrong about this, but I believe you can file an "A NA" airport if the wx is CAVU. However, I don't have a reference for its permissibility in front of me. The common sense explanation is that if you have two airports, one without an IAP and one that's A NA, but both are CAVU, there's no real difference between the two. You don't need an IAP in either case.

Regards,
Booker
 
Booker said:
I'm going to get lit up if I'm wrong about this, but I believe you can file an "A NA" airport if the wx is CAVU. However, I don't have a reference for its permissibility in front of me. The common sense explanation is that if you have two airports, one without an IAP and one that's A NA, but both are CAVU, there's no real difference between the two. You don't need an IAP in either case.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. For example, if the destination airport on an IFR flight plan doesn't have an IAP, you =must= file an alternate no matter what the weather is. In that case you could not satisfy the rule by listing a "NA" airport as the alternate.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. For example, if the destination airport on an IFR flight plan doesn't have an IAP, you =must= file an alternate no matter what the weather is. In that case you could not satisfy the rule by listing a "NA" airport as the alternate.

OK, let me try again. I agree that if no Part 97 approach procedure is published at the destination, an alternate is required--I wasn't disputing that. However, the examiner who conducted my II check back in the day was adamant that an airport that's lised as NA can in fact be filed as an alternate if and only if descent from the MEA and landing can be made under VFR, i.e., no approach would need to be flown. Again, I don't have a reference for this right now, but I'm looking for it.

B
 
Booker said:
However, the examiner who conducted my II check back in the day was adamant that an airport that's lised as NA can in fact be filed as an alternate if and only if descent from the MEA and landing can be made under VFR, i.e., no approach would need to be flown. Again, I don't have a reference for this right now,
I found it. I was wrong (usually am when I make things up without thinking them through :))

It's in 91.169(c) [snipped]:
...no person may include an alternate airport in an IFR flight plan unless appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, 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 weather minima:
(1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published...

(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
In other words, you can list an airport that doesn't have any IAP at all as an alternate under these circumstances. Technically it says that the airport has to have "no IAP", but it really wouldn't matter.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I found it. I was wrong (usually am when I make things up without thinking them through :))

OK, thanks. I figured it was somewhere in the reading, but I couldn't get to it right away.

Regards,
Booker
 
I was going to step in earlier, but didn't.

Throw some of the regs away for a second and think this out.

I'm flying from some airport to Point "A" with an alternate of airport "B".

1.) If Point "A" is CAVU, no brainer and no need for an alternate. Filing an alternate falls into the Part 1 definition and is basically an FYI piece of info for the FAA.

2.) If Point "A" does not meet basic VFR (1-2-3 rule), then I must file a legal alternate.

2a.) One legal alternate could be an airport with a valid approach and weather such that I can make that approach (Alternate mins specified or 600-2/800-2 standard numbers).

2b.) If no part 97 approach, then the alternate must have basic VFR conditions from a descent from the MEA.

Now, an NA in the "Alternate" box designates either of two conditions. The field is "Not Authorized" if there is no approved weather observation capability and/or the approach facilities are unmonitored.

Going back to #2b above. You are flying to an IFR destination, you need a legal alternate and the weather must be VFR for you to reach a safe conclusion to your flight. Seeing an "NA" on your pick of a field, you are going to throw caution to the wind and list as a legal airport an airport which by the FAA's definition possibly does not have an "approved" weather source? How do you know it will be VFR when you get there?

My point is - there are regs and there is good sense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with planning a flight to Point "A" that you know is IFR, planning to go visit Point "B" which is a possible convenient alternate but listing Point "C" as your true and legal alternate. This is no different from having a non-IFR destination. You go "take a look" at the non-complying airport but you have planned with fuel in the tanks to go elsewhere that you know and can be sure that the weather is adequate.

Dime store lawyer the fine points all you want, but my conclusion is that you are setting yourself up for "inadequate preflight planning" if the field with the "NA" designator is listed for a required alternate and your plan doesn't work out!
 
tarp

I agree with your assessment, and I'm a big proponent of employing common sense in flying. In that vain: 91.169 explicitly allows me to file an aiport with no Part 97 approach as an alternate if I can descend and land VFR. This means I can legally file and use Podunk Muni, an aiport that's lucky just to have a CTAF frequency, if I can determine the weather will be somewhere around CAVU when I get there (e.g., the FA reads "SKC. OTLK...VFR."). But now let's say Podunk gets a fancy GPS approach. It still doesn't have wx reporting so it's now NA for alternate listing. It's still CAVU at my ETA, but all of a sudden I can't use it for a simple visual approach? I'm the last person to say the regs make sense, but this is encroaching a little too far into asinine territory.

B
 
Booker, thank you for getting eveybody back on track.

You hit the nail on the head. Joe Blows Grass Strip is ok for use as an alternate if the wx is CAVU but the second a GPS approach is installed it isnt???

I am looking for the dime store lawyers point of view. Can I legally do this? Will I is a totally different animal.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top