91.169

[midlifeflyer]

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 brainier and no need for an alternate.

Throwing the regs back into it for just a moment, this is not necessarily correct. If point A doesn't have a published instrument approach, an alternate is required, even if the weather is CAVU.

I agree with your practical assessment.

 

[tarp]

removed for edit

 

[tarp]

Dimestore lawyering - OK I'll agree with Booker.

The authors of Part 91 and Part 97 probably never had a conversation.

Ergo, Joe's Grass Strip is perfectly legal (under VFR conditions).
Joe's then requests and receives a Far Part 97 GPS approach - this puts an "NA" - not authorized - ON THE APPROACH.
The airport without the approach is still an airport.

Without the listing in Part 97, the reg 91.169 is open ended.

With the listing in Part 97, (and as your lawyer), I would state that the "NA" refers to the approach and therefore nullifies the listing of that approach in Part 97. Now, you are back to 91.169(b). I'd hate to go against an FAA lawyer with this one, though. Your best argument would be other airports that have mixes like ILS and GPS approaches - the NA on the GPS doesn't nullify the use of the ILS.

Nobody said the regs had to make flawless sense.

Now go back to my little world. Let's take a mythical trip from Baltimore (BWI) to Shenandoah, VA (SHD). It's clear at BWI. The FA says "SKC. OTLK...VFR." for the MD, VA, WV area. The weather at SHD is listed as "one-half mile, ceilings 500OVC". The weather at CHO (Charlottesville, VA) on the other side of the mountains is P6M, 5,000BKN. You are actually going to Bob's chicken ranch between SHD and Luray, VA. Bob has a grass strip and Luray has "NA" for alternates.

Now as the world turns this is pretty common. The Shenadoah valley gets fogged in on what would otherwise be cool clear days everywhere else in the tri-state area.

Bob's chicken ranch has no weather reporting, Luray has no weather reporting, SHD and CHO do but they are on different sides of the mountain.

I would hate to go up against an FAA lawyer and state that you did adequate preflight actions (91.103) in determining that Bob's was a suitable alternate and that you did not act in a careless and reckless manner (91.13) by launching on this trip with Bob's as an alternate (if anything went wrong). The only suitable alternate in this scenario was CHO. Bob's and the Area Forecast just don't cut it.

So when the rubber meets the road, when there are WX requirements in the FAR's we suddenly have to take a serious look (just like 121 operators do) at the availability of weather services at our intended airports.

Just to stratify this - let's change our example from Virginia to Bishop, CA. The valley is a little bigger and the mountains a lot bigger. You put in the required fuel based on Bishop Airport as a destination and Anne's Soybean Farm as an alternate. But the only approved weather station reporting good weather is in Fresno. Your Bugsmasher 2000 with a top speed of 80 knots, you've got fuel to go to your airport, your alternate and 45 minutes thereafter. So you go to Bishop, nothing. They vector you to Anne's at the MVA, nothing and now you are left with a :50 min flight to Fresno with :45 minutes of fuel in the tanks. Hmmm.

You talked about legal and what you would do from a safety point of view. I, acting as an FAA lawyer (which I'm not), would make a case that all of the regulations inside Part 91 and 97 apply to you (with about a dozen other parts). You can't separate just 91.169 and say "Well, I'm legal!"

 

[Booker]

You talked about legal and what you would do from a safety point of view. I, acting as an FAA lawyer (which I'm not), would make a case that all of the regulations inside Part 91 and 97 apply to you (with about a dozen other parts). You can't separate just 91.169 and say "Well, I'm legal!"

Checks asked if a pilot can file an NA airport as an alternate, not if one should. I was attempting to address that question and nothing else. Every pilot should know the feds can go after anyone for anything and call it a 91.13 action. As for "dime store lawyering," call it what you will, but I enjoy discussing different scenarios wherein there is no clear by-the-book procedure. But for the record, I insist that if someone's looking for a loophole for the express purpose of circumventing common sense and FAA intent, they shouldn't be looking in the first place.

B

 

[midlifeflyer]

Checks asked if a pilot can file an NA airport as an alternate, not if one should. I was attempting to address that question and nothing else. Every pilot should know the feds can go after anyone for anything and call it a 91.13 action. As for "dime store lawyering," call it what you will, but I enjoy discussing different scenarios wherein there is no clear by-the-book procedure.

And as these questions go, this is a pretty good one.

After I finally got the regulation right, I ended up saying "Technically it says that the airport has to have "no IAP", but it really wouldn't matter."

I'll stand by that in this academic discussion. If the conditions are such that you could list an airport with no instrument approach as an alternate, then it makes no sense, common or legal, that you can't list an airport with an instrument approach that says "NA"

That's really enough for me.

But we can play a technical game if we want to.

The "NA" doesn't say that the "airport is not available as an alternate". It only says that "alternate minimums are not authorized". All that means is that standard alternate minimums (800/2 or 600/2) can't be used and that there are no IFR alternate minimums established for that airport..

Move away from the "alternate" issue for a moment. What are the "minimums" at an airport that has no IFR minimums? Isn't it VFR conditions?

So what are the minimums that must be met at =any airport= that doesn't have IFR minimums that permit it to be used as an alternate?

 

[Iceman21]

My guess would be minimum VFR conditions that pertained to the class of airspace the airport was in. However, I cannot think of an example which applies to the above situation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My guess would be minimum VFR conditions that pertained to the class of airspace the airport was in. However, I cannot think of an example which applies to the above situation.

I think that was tarp's point.

Assuming we don't want to go far out of our way, the effective range of most light singles and twins are not going to allow for an alternate with substantially different weather conditions than our destinations.

And whether the weather is "iffy" of not, if we have to plan for an alternate, why not make it a real one?

 

[cjh]

Good discussion.

I wonder how often this is the culprit when we see NTSB stats that involve "minimal fuel" issues. It's not that the pilot tried to stretch the original destination, but that he didn't think through the real life issues involved. You're headed to Podunk airport, can't get in, and your alternate is so close by that for the average GA pilot who couldn't make it into the first airport, heading to the alternate just wastes more fuel. Perhaps as instructors we don't drill hard enough on the importance of checking weather enroute and stopping BEFORE arriving at the destination rather than going the distance, finding a landing isn't possible, and THEN discovering your nice, legal flight plan is likely to make you lawn dart material.

 

[Iceman21]

I think the proper education would be practical fuel planning, not minimum fuel requirements. 45 minutes of reserve fuel at 100 KTAS is not a whole lot of ground covered.

 

[cjh]

Frankly, if I only had 45 minutes of fuel left in my tanks I'd be scared sh##less.