91.169

[Checks]

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.

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

 

[Booker]

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

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

 

[Booker]

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

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

 

[Booker]

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

 

[tarp]

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!

 

[Booker]

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

 

[Checks]

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.

 

[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.