Alternate Minimums 91.169

[Jester119]

I am about to go for my CFII ride and just have a question concerning the reg on alt min. I know about the 1-2-3 rule and then the 600-2 , 800-2. For example you had to file an alt b/c the weather was below the 2000ft, so you file an alternate. Once you fly to the first airport an were unable to land there so you fly to the alternate airport. I am sort of confussed with when you can start your decent to that aiport or what mins to follow at the alt airport for landing if anyone has any good place that explains it very well or could explain I would be thankful.

 

[vclean]

600-2 & 800-2 are only used to determine if an airport can be filed as an alternate, otherwise the charted minimums for the alternate (ie. 200 - 1/2) are used to fly the approach.

 

[EDUC8-or]

The WX can be above the 1-2-3 rule and you still may have to file an alternate. For example, if you file (EDIT, I said fly instead of file earlier) to an airport without an instrument approach you will still need the alternate, even if there isn't a cloud in the sky and visibility is unlimited.

Also, the 600-2 and 800-2 should be used only after you have checked to see if there are separate alternate minimums. They can be found in the index in the front of NOS/NACO plates, I haven't used Jepps in a while so I can't help out there. Also, lots of airports cannot be used as an alternate. In the NACO charts it will say A/NA in bold print on top left of the plate. For an airport to be used as an alternate there must be a weather observer present or the AWOS/ASOS must be monitored as well as the navaid that is providing guidance for the approach. Usually this leaves controlled fields for your alternates because there is a weather observer present.

If the weather is really bad at your original destination ATC will usually ask what you want to do in case you have to go missed or they will give instructions because they know the WX is crappy. If you have to proceed to your alternate, they will vector you for the approach at your next airport. They will descend you to their MVA, and if that is below the clouds and you call airport in sight you might be cleared for the visual. If you can't get out of the clouds they will vector you for the approach in use, or if they're really nice and not busy let you choose your approach. As stated before, you will use the minimums for the approach you are going to shoot.

Long answer to a short question that was answered in the above post. Good luck on your ride!

 

[pilotman2105]

For example, if you fly to an airport without an instrument approach you will still need the alternate, even if there isn't a cloud in the sky and visibility is unlimited.

???

Where are you getting this from?

 

[vossdr1]

see pt 91.139

 

[EDUC8-or]

???

Where are you getting this from?

91.169 (a)(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an alerternate airport.
(b) paragraph (a)(2) does not apply if:
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; AND
(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following:

As I interpret this, there must be an approach AND the WX must be above the 1-2-3 rule to leave the alternate field in your flight plan blank. Correct me if I'm wrong, I have been before. Just don't tell my wife!

 

[pilotyip]

Alternate mins for filing only

Are for filing purposes only, once you are airborne any airport is a destination and any approach anywhere can be shot if the weather is above minimums. If you miss at your destination say YIP (Willow Run) and LAN (Lansing), 45 miles away is your filed alternate. Weather a DTW (Detroit) 6 miles away is above minimums, you do not have to go to LAN, you can request to go to DTW, you do not have to go to LAN. Assuming no lost comm etc.

 

[pilotman2105]

Learning new things

91.169 (a)(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an alerternate airport.
(b) paragraph (a)(2) does not apply if:
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport of intended landing; AND
(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate the following:

As I interpret this, there must be an approach AND the WX must be above the 1-2-3 rule to leave the alternate field in your flight plan blank. Correct me if I'm wrong, I have been before. Just don't tell my wife!

Good call. Learn something new every day. I thought that you could file anything as a destination, and unless the 1-2-3 rules was not met, you did not have to file an alternate.

Thanks!

 

[philo beddoe]

To clarify a point for any newer IFR pilots here, Ceiling is ONLY a controlling value for FILING an alternate.

Once you divert to your filed alternate or anywhere else, charted VISIBILITY is the only controlling number as to whether you can descend below dh/mda and land.

Some approaches are not usable for filing for alternate as well.

For instance: Suppose your alternate has an ILS and a GPS approach.

The ILS has non-standard alternate minimums of
700-2 1/2.

The GPS approach is NA for alternate purposes.

You may file this airport as an alternate if you have the forecast ceiling and visibility, AND if the ILS is operational.

IF you divert to the alternate, you may fly the GPS approach if it suits you. You just can't file based on it.

Wait until 135/121 indoc. It gets worse.
One-approach rule, two-approach rule, 3585 conditional language exemption, marginal weather definition, second alternates, runway 'suitability'. Whew!

 

[minitour]

...
Wait until 135/121 indoc. It gets worse.
One-approach rule, two-approach rule, 3585 conditional language exemption, marginal weather definition, second alternates, runway 'suitability'. Whew!

WTF
Are you F*cking serious!?!?!?!

I keep asking myself why they have all these different minimums...why not just teach everyone the same minimums from the get-go?

-mini

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

WTF
Are you F*cking serious!?!?!?!

I keep asking myself why they have all these different minimums...why not just teach everyone the same minimums from the get-go?

-mini

Because we are pt 91 and they don't care (as much) if we go off and kill ourselves.

 

[minitour]

Because we are pt 91 and they don't care (as much) if we go off and kill ourselves.

The government doesn't care about us??

Go figure!

 

[lawfly]

Alternate Minimums

And if the ALTERNATE airport has no instrument approach procedure, then alternate's c & v must be such as to allow descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR. 91.169(c)(2).

 

[pilotyip]

Alternate?

Without an approach would it have a TAF? If no TAF how could you determine it meets alternate minimums?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Without an approach would it have a TAF? If no TAF how could you determine it meets alternate minimums?

Area forecast and other weather products. Perhaps that TAF for the airport only 10 miles away.

Do you see "TAF" anywhere in the regulatory requirements?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Because we are pt 91 and they don't care (as much) if we go off and kill ourselves.

Actually, I think it's the other way around. The operators under the other parts have tighter requirements because they are carrying paying passengers. Heck they ever require certificates that say things like "commercial" or ATP.

minitour, want Part 91 under tighter rules? Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Check out the TSA rule requiring CFIs to obtain birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers from US citizens for Discovery Flights.

 

[pilotyip]

Must be a 121/135 thing

In order for an airport to qualify as an alternate in air carrier service you must have forecast for that airport showing it will at or above alternate minimums at the ETA to the alternate. Even if the area forecast says VFR to the moon, you would still need that airports TAF to file as an alternate. I have always applied that rule to my 91 flying.

 

[lawfly]

"appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a combination of them..." 91.169(c)

 

[minitour]

...
minitour, want Part 91 under tighter rules? Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Check out the TSA rule requiring CFIs to obtain birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers from US citizens for Discovery Flights.

Not necessarily do I want us under tighter rules...its just a P.I.T.A. to learn all of these minimums and then eventually (God willing) have to re-learn a whole new set of minimums...

but that is a good point...where does the TSA stop? If they make us get all of that info for a 30 minute flight where we may never see the person again, does that mean I'm going to have to (eventually) get my friends' birth certificates when they want to go jump in a 152 to go see their house from 3,000'?

I can see where this is going to be a big can of Wermz in the coming months/years...

-mini

 

[dolphinjazz]

Regarding TSA rule...

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Check out the TSA rule requiring CFIs to obtain birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers from US citizens for Discovery Flights.

I was hoping to find some discussion regarding this. I searched the messages in most of the forums here, but have seen nothing mentioned except the above quote. (I might have missed it.)

I have been quite disappointed in this ruling personally, but I don't see the outrage from the instructors or flight schools. Or maybe I am missing it?

Perhaps I should start a new thread asking how folks here feel about this TSA rule? Am I the only one who thinks the TSA rule is a bit over the top?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Perhaps I should start a new thread asking how folks here feel about this TSA rule? Am I the only one who thinks the TSA rule is a bit over the top?

Hardly. A lot of folks and groups are talking about it, although not a lot of discussion around here. Some are posting official comments directly to the DOT instead of jawing about it among themselves.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResultsSimple.cfm?numberValue=19147&searchType=docket

and, of course, there is the "fear factor."

 

[nosehair]

Check out the TSA rule requiring CFIs to obtain birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers from US citizens for Discovery Flights.

Re-e-ely!?? Wow! Now I can finally click my heels together, hold out my hand, put a smirky, contemptious smile on my face, raise an eyebrow and say..."Youah paipers, Pleeze."....

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re-e-ely!??

Yup. And as a CFI, you have to register with TSA.

There's an interesting exclusion for "demonstration flights for marketing purposes" defined as "a flight for the purpose of demonstrating an aircraft's or aircraft simulator's capabilities or characteristics to a potential purchaser, or to an agent of a potential purchaser".

So I guess you have to go through this rigmarole if Dad gets an intro lesson in a CE-152 for his birthday but not if you are, say, a wayward Saudi prince and want to see how well that B-737 "performs".

I don't think you were there at the time, but on the old theCFI board I answered a question by making up this incredibly stupid and farfetched scenario in which CFIs had to take down all sorts of information before an intro flight and submit a form 8710-BS to the local FSDO within a certain number of days after. I guess the lesson is, "think of something incredibly stupid and the government is bound to do it at some point"

 

[nosehair]

form 8710-BS

Form 8710-"B" "S"???.....that's just tooo good! ROFLMAO

 

[igneousy2]

This is such a typical knee jerk government reaction.

I'm surpised AC 61-21 isn't classified TOP SECRET yet.

Maybe they should ban sectional charts and GPS units so that terroist can't find their targets.

This is ridicules.

Later

 

[dolphinjazz]

And as a CFI, you have to register with TSA.

I originally heard "register with your local FSDO." (either way, makes no sense)

Okay, how ridiculous. So, even more ridiculous, I call up the local blokes and ask for an operations inspector. Told him that I wish to register with him. Right now!

He had no clue... none. And, they still don't... I mean Jeeeeeezzzz... they only have a 3-inch file on me at the FAA going all the way back to the 70s. And now they need me to "check in???"

What gets me is that I do *not* see the outrage.

EAA sent out another note just a few minutes ago. "EAA is reviewing the new rule (49 CFR Part 1552) to determine how all the new training categories will affect all of our members."

Not, "this is the biggest crock since the Disney TFR..." or... "we're going to fight this with all our might..." or "these goons couldn't detect 10,000 pounds of T-N-T in a cargo hold of a 757, but they are going to have all CFIs register..." NO... nothing along these lines.

NAFI also sent the same nonsense out yesterday. I wrote to them asking them for their position... or rather "op-" position... still waiting for a response.

It seems like all the alphabet groups are taking this lying down. Or... maybe I am just not paying attention. I personally have not heard the outrage.

(I probably should have posted this as a new thread... if there is interest past this post, maybe we should?)

Best,

Garrett

 

[midlifeflyer]

"Alien" Flight Idstruction - TSA-2004-19147

What gets me is that I do *not* see the outrage.

It's there but subdued. Aviation groups are expressing opposition but doing it in a way that avoids being labeled as a bunch of anti-security crazies. (I'm sure that at least one candidate for office in your area has been labeled with the absurd "anti-defense" tag because of some small part of the home war on terror he or she =dares= think goes too far), So the opposition is being made, but carefully. AOPA, as usual, is working with it's contacts in Congress. NAFI last week solicited member comments (I made one) that I think they are going to use in a formal opposition Comment.

 

[igneousy2]

All of the aviation groups need to start getting together and taking a united stand on the issues. There is a lot of common ground. If they all come out together then it will help the public perception problem.

It is absurd that criticizing a system is viewed as being blasphamus. (sorry sp?)

It is possible to be for airline security (as I am), to anti TSA (which I also am).

Later