Filing IFR to no WX/no app. airport

[rchcfi]

I have always been told (but have never actually done) that it is perfectly legal to file an IFR flight plan to an airport with no weather reporting and no IAPs. It has always been my understanding that as long as you abide by the following, you would be legal:
- Go ahead and file IFR to that airport
- Check the Area Forecast to determine that at arrival time the weather will be VFR at and below MVA or the MEA
- File an alternate that has WX reporting and IAPs

But doing some further research, it looks as though that is not the proper and legal way of doing it.

Can someone enlighten me as to the legal way and how to access 8400.10 Vol. 3, Ch 6, Sec 1, para 153(d)(4).........I can't get to it via the FAA website.

Thanks

 

[midlifeflyer]

But doing some further research, it looks as though that is not the proper and legal way of doing it.

What further research was that? Other than that you don't need the second on your list and that "weather reporting" is not an issue except for the choice of alternate, you're pretty much correct, in terms of Part 91 requirements. All you need is file IFR to the airport and have a legal alternate. 91.169 is pretty straightforward.

Can someone enlighten me as to the legal way and how to access 8400.10 Vol. 3, Ch 6, Sec 1, para 153(d)(4).........I can't get to it via the FAA website.

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8400/

Are you sure that's not section 1153(d)(4)?

 

[charter dog]

Below is a quotation from, and a link to the requested section.​

From 8400.10 vol 3 chap 6 sec 1 para 1153(D)

(4) Specific Part 135 Requirements. ​

Part 135,​

section 135.213(b) requires “weather observations

made and furnished to pilots to conduct IFR operations”

to be taken at the airport where those operations
are conducted, unless the operator has been issued
authorization by OpSpecs to use an observation taken
at another location. The NTSB has ruled that a Part
135 operator may file a flight plan and fly IFR to a
radio fix where VFR conditions exist, and then
continue under VFR to a destination (where weather
reports are not available) when an area forecast shows
prevailing weather to be VFR.​

​

NOTE: In these cases, operators must continue
to comply with the flight locating requirements
of part 135, section 135.79.​

​

Best,​

​

​

 

[rchcfi]

What further research was that? Other than that you don't need the second on your list and that "weather reporting" is not an issue except for the choice of alternate, you're pretty much correct, in terms of Part 91 requirements. All you need is file IFR to the airport and have a legal alternate. 91.169 is pretty straightforward.



Sorry - Forgot to mention I was referring to Part 135. And according to Charter Dog's response, it looks as though I was misinformed in the past. Hmmm, so now I need to file to a fix that's close.

Thanks

 

[MauleSkinner]

Sorry - Forgot to mention I was referring to Part 135. And according to Charter Dog's response, it looks as though I was misinformed in the past. Hmmm, so now I need to file to a fix that's close.

Thanks

We always used to file to a nearby airport via a fix over the actual destination airport...request minimum altitude from Center, and hopefully see the airport. If not, continue on to the filed destination, break out, and continue using VFR privileges appropriate to the OpSpecs.

Fly safe!

David

 

[avbug]

What maulskinner suggests is technically legal, but frowned upon...but not uncommon. The original poster didn't specify what's allowed or disallowed in his or her opspecs (and probably doesn't know, or wouldn't be asking the question). 135.4 now allows filing to fields without approved weather for certain operators.

If operating outside Part 135 (ie, Part 91 only), then you can file to any point in the system, including an airport without weather reporting. Under 135, if you're filing to a destination airport, unless you meet and are approved for the criteria specified in 135.4, you must have weather reporting, and weather must be forecast to be at or above minimums at your filed destination.

Under Part 91 only, an alternate isn't required if the forecast for the destination (including area forecast) will allow descent and landing under VFR without need for an approach. Under 135, if allowed by OpSpecs and 135.4, you will require an alternate with approved weather, and the alternate must be forecast to be above minimums.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Under Part 91 only, an alternate isn't required if the forecast for the destination (including area forecast) will allow descent and landing under VFR without need for an approach.

Not quite.

The original post is talking about a destination without an IAP, for which you always need to list an alternate under Part 91

The "allow descent and landing under VFR" part of the reg refers to using an airport without an IAP as an alternate, not to what conditions must be in order to avoid the need for an alternate when filing to a destination with an IAP.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What maulskinner suggests is technically legal, but frowned upon...but not uncommon.

Avbug.. this is the first I've heard that it's frowned upon...do you know why that's the case? I know ATC used to complain about a freight operator filing to an airport that they weren't planning on going to, simply because the weather reporter didn't start work at their true destination until after they needed to be airborne. Is it primarily ATC that frowns on it, or the good folks at the FSDO?

Fly safe!

David

 

[avbug]

It's deceptive. Why file into the system and allow the NAS to fit you into the puzzle when you really intend to do something entirely different?It's a little like trying to shoehorn VFR into a slot location where the system is saturated. Can't get the slot...try showing up VFR, or filing to another location then cancelling and dropping in, to bypass the system. Certainly ATC doesn't approve.

Does the FSDO approve? Doesn't really matter if it doesn't violate a regulation...but ATC doesn't need the aggravation. A little like waiting until short final on a LAHSO runway and saying "unable LAHSO." Something they might like to know when you enter the airspace and have already heard on ATIS that land and hold short is in progress (Long Beach gets testy about that).

On occasion, filing one place to land another may be necessary to be legal, and may be the only way. In such cases, I inform ATC at the outset of my intention and remind as appropriate when approaching the sector that will be handling the change. In such cases, I've seldom met with any heartburn.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It's deceptive. Why file into the system and allow the NAS to fit you into the puzzle when you really intend to do something entirely different?It's a little like trying to shoehorn VFR into a slot location where the system is saturated. Can't get the slot...try showing up VFR, or filing to another location then cancelling and dropping in, to bypass the system. Certainly ATC doesn't approve.

Does the FSDO approve? Doesn't really matter if it doesn't violate a regulation...but ATC doesn't need the aggravation. A little like waiting until short final on a LAHSO runway and saying "unable LAHSO." Something they might like to know when you enter the airspace and have already heard on ATIS that land and hold short is in progress (Long Beach gets testy about that).

On occasion, filing one place to land another may be necessary to be legal, and may be the only way. In such cases, I inform ATC at the outset of my intention and remind as appropriate when approaching the sector that will be handling the change. In such cases, I've seldom met with any heartburn.

Thanks...tha'ts kind of what I thought.

We still do that on occasion for various reasons (even Part 91), but as you said, we give ATC maximum notice of our true intentions. We also pick a filed destination that we can live with if we have to

Fly safe!

David