IFR Alternates

[schoolio]

They did. In the AIM...but you weren't content with what you were told by the AIM.

The 14 CFR ("FAR's) doesn't prescribe for you the loading limitations of your airplane, or powerplant limitations, or minimum or maximum airspeeds...these are certification issues, and the regulation that covers them is the aircraft type certificate data sheet, and type certificate itself...as well as the approved aircraft flight manual which contains such limitations.

That you don't find it in 14 CFR Part 91 doesn't surprise you, because you don't expect to find it there.

Likewise, that your onboard equipment may not be certified to meet the requirements of a particular regulatory requirement, doesn't mean that it needs to be published in the regulation. If you have a VFR-only GPS, for example, the regulation shouldn't be ammended to read "unless your GPS is approved for VFR-only." That's a given, and you know that because your equipment doesn't have that approval, it's not allowed to be used for primary IFR navigation.

Depending on your equipment, you may be able to file an airport equippped with only a GPS approach, as your alternate airport. But only if your onboard equipment is certified for it, and meets the appropriate Technical Standard Order. That's a TSO issue, not a regulatory issue...if your equipment doesn't meet the standards and can't do it, it can't do it, regulations not withstanding.

However...being as one of the quotes provided above came from the FAA Instrument FLight Training Handbook...this isn't rocket science. This is information presented to instrument students before they ever obtain their instrument rating. And it's printed in numerous places...you found it yourself in the AIM...just didn't want to accept it.

It's not an issue of not being printed in the specific regulation you seek...the information was available and you found it. It's an issue of w(h)eather you believe it or not. If don't believe it, then publishing it in a million places won't change that, will it?

Avbug - thanks for the info. I understand it's not rocket science, but I'm just used to seeing things a particular way, and this particular topic isn't as direct as most others are, i.e. specifically spelled out in the regulations (or at least the regs that I stick my nose into on a daily basis). I believe the AIM just fine, I just wanted to see something "regulatory". Call it professional research, if you will. I just wanted to know the "why", and between you and a couple others, I got the answer. Fair enough...thanks again.

 

[avbug]

Avbug - thanks for the info. I understand it's not rocket science, but I'm just used to seeing things a particular way, and this particular topic isn't as direct as most others are, i.e. specifically spelled out in the regulations (or at least the regs that I stick my nose into on a daily basis). I believe the AIM just fine, I just wanted to see something "regulatory". Call it professional research, if you will. I just wanted to know the "why", and between you and a couple others, I got the answer. Fair enough...thanks again.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I like seeing people doing what you're doing. Don't assume, find out, and test what you find. That's the RIGHT way to do it.

You're doing fine.

Feeding wannabe is like feeding the deer at the zoo. I remember as a kid buying the popcorn they sold...I ate half, the deer ate half, everybody was happy. Of course, at the end of the day I went home and back to reality, and the deer was still on display at the zoo...much like wannabe...but if it weren't for critters like him, there's be nothing to poach when we come back online.

 

[HS125]

Feeding wannabe is like feeding the deer at the zoo. I remember as a kid buying the popcorn they sold...I ate half, the deer ate half, everybody was happy. Of course, at the end of the day I went home and back to reality, and the deer was still on display at the zoo...much like wannabe...but if it weren't for critters like him, there's be nothing to poach when we come back online.

ROFLMAO!:laugh:

 

[nosehair]

if it weren't for critters like him, there's be nothing to poach when we come back online.

Woohahahahahahahaha!!!

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

This guys is like the guy who keeps insisting that a controller can waive the 250Kts speed below 10,000'. Has all the pertinent info in front of him, but refuses to admit he's wrong.

Begs the question, wrong about what? I posted no opinion on the original question from Schoolio.

Feeding wannabe is like feeding the deer at the zoo. I remember as a kid buying popcorn that they sold.....

You mean to tell me you have grown up? It is not very obvious in most of your posts on this board. Your immaturity is quite apparent to everyone that reads what you spew. Well with your need to belittle people that disagree with you or don't share your views, your need to show everyone just how much you know, your need to get the last word (see other 2 threads), how you continue to hide behind the anonymous nature of this forum without backing yourself up, and your 4800 posts.....Poser.

You know, I tried to handle this via PMs, but you weren't interested and wanted to keep this out in the open. Yet another example of your immaturity. Move on and grow up.

 

[NoPax]

Begs the question, wrong about what? I posted no opinion on the original question from Schoolio.



You mean to tell me you have grown up? It is not very obvious in most of your posts on this board. Your immaturity is quite apparent to everyone that reads what you spew. Well with your need to belittle people that disagree with you or don't share your views, your need to show everyone just how much you know, your need to get the last word (see other 2 threads), how you continue to hide behind the anonymous nature of this forum without backing yourself up, and your 4800 posts.....Poser.

You know, I tried to handle this via PMs, but you weren't interested and wanted to keep this out in the open. Yet another example of your immaturity. Move on and grow up.

Avbug has spoken. Bow to avbug. Just leave it alone and move on there Schoolio.

I see this was your first post in this thread, the first stone was cast by you, after Avbug contributed to the thread (at some length). Avbug always backs himself up - refers to the regs, orders etc., by name and number, I've never seen him say "I believe, I think, I'm pretty sure that".

Your posts are pathetic, yet, you keep coming back for more punishment.

Maybe take some of your own sound advice - move on and grow up.

 

[Sim Sweat]

I see this was your first post in this thread, the first stone was cast by you, after Avbug contributed to the thread (at some length).

Zactly right.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

I see this was your first post in this thread, the first stone was cast by you, after Avbug contributed to the thread (at some length). Avbug always backs himself up - refers to the regs, orders etc., by name and number, I've never seen him say "I believe, I think, I'm pretty sure that".

Really? You don't have to look far to find a couple of examples.

Uh-uh.

I think he meant ......

Also,

I don't believe......

Not that this is a bad thing, this is a board where opinions are expressed. And these kind of statements can seperate actual facts from opinions.

You are right, the first stone was cast by me on this thread and was a spill over from two other threads and I apologized to Schoolio for that. It was a little provoking, but at the same time was meant to keep Schoolio from falling into the same trap that I and so many others have. Avbug does know his stuff and I have not said otherwise. I am sure he has provided invaluable information to many aviators over the years. It's just that his way of conveying such information can irratate people. Not the actual facts, but statements like, "They did. In the AIM...but you weren't content with what you were told by the AIM." As seen earlier in this thread. If he could leave things like that out, he would have the respect of most of the aviators on this board and not just some of them.

Now Avbug and A squared have certainly given me some food for thought. I can agree that it might not matter what the local FAA guy says. Washington might actually be cut and dry on all the regs. However, it is often hard to get clarification from them. That is why on the previous topic(and many others) I have brought it up to just about every operations inspector that I come across. That all being said, it is still an inspector from the local office that begins an investigation. If you are in compliance to the inspectors view of the regulations, then you have a good chance of the case never reaching legal. Of course, your best bet is to comply the way Washington intends you to.

 

[405]

Sorry to stir up the mud but I have one observation. Avbug posted two pretty lengthy retorts to Lear Wanna Be after he fired a volly. One was posted at 1612 and the next one was at 1613.

That's some fast thread searching/copy and pasting and typing.

 

[pgcfii2002]

First of all:



You started the thread on the premise that you are always required to file an alternate, and used the regulation regarding fuel to back this assertion. This is incorrect. The regulation you quoted, 14 CFR 91.167, regards fuel, and fuel requirements relative to your destination and alternate. It does not dictate a requirement to file an alternate airport.

91.167(b) exempts you not from filing an alternate, but from the fuel reqirements attached to an alternate. A subtle distinction...but in neither (a) nor (b) is the requirement to cite an alternate founded. Those are fuel requirements. 169(a)(2) sets the requirement for an alternate.

Back on point...the regulations under which you flew in the army are of course, irrelevant. How about the following quote from FAA Handbook FAA-H-8261-1, Instrument Proceedures Handbook (IPH), Chapter 2 (Takeoffs and Departures), under IFR Alternate Minimums:



You already supplied the following from AIM 1-1-19:



In addition to the guidance given from the AIM previously, 1-1-19 also includes the following statement regarding specific equipment meeting a specific TSO requirement:



Therein lies the crux of the answer to your question. Equipment certified under Technical Standard Order TSO C129, was certified with the intent of supplementing other onboard equipment. If your equipment meets only TSO Standard C129, then it was designed to meet a standard that intended for it to back up other forms of navigation...not be the only form of navigation. Accordingly, it's an equipment restriction, rather than a regulatory restriction that bars you from operating to an alternate soley with the GPS approach. Your equipment isn't certified for it.

If you're operating with equipment that meets a higher order of TSO, this restriction doesn't apply. If you use your equipment for a purpose other than that which it was intended, you're violating the airworthiness and operational standards of the equipment, and thereby unable to meet the requirements of the approach in the first place. If your equipment is used other than it's intended or certified purpose, your equipment is not airworthy...airworthy meaning both safe for the intended operation, and meeting it's type certification or standard certification...if it's use is outside that certification, then it's not airworthy for the operation intended, and therefore illegal. As a side note, that sets you up for additional violations.

WAAS certified equipment does not require other forms of navigation appropriate to the route flown, and is stand alone. Again, we read:



FAA-H-8083-15, Instrument Flying Handbook, Chapter 7, states:



The same chapter also states:



Advisory Circular AC 120-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, Part 10, Operational Considerations, subpart C, Alternate Airports:



The bottom line is that one could go on and on with references, but as A Squared noted, you have the AIM reference, and that ought to be enough. The references in the AIM, while not regulatory of their own accord, are a compilation of numerous other sources, and it is an authoritative publication, as well as a Standards publication. You may also be able to tell that it saves you a LOT of legwork by bringing a lot of information to one central source.

As a professional pilot, you are expected to know, understand, and abide by all practices provided in the AIM...even if you haven't read it elsewhere, first. Regardless of the type of flying you do, it's a pretty darn good idea, anyway.

As an aside, consider the purpose of your alternate. It's your backup in case your planned efforts fail. It's where you're going to go that's your golden parachute in case you can't get in to your destination, for whatever reason. You're not required to have more than your minimum reserve fuel on arrival at the alternate. It's not the time to be engaging in guesswork, flying down to minimums with a possibility of not making it in, etc. The intent of the requirements to have backup means, including a viable nav means other than minimum standard TSO'd equipment and unmonitored navaids, is that when you get to that alternate you have something reliable and known to get you down. You're down to your backup options, and the purpose of these requirements is that these need to work.

If the navaid is unmonitored, you don't have assurances. If you're using equipment cited by the previous C129/129A TSO...ample possibilities still exist on arrival at the alternate that you may not be able to land, that using it as an alternate defies the logic and intent of the alternate in the first place. Therefore, safety and wisdom dictate that you use an airport that's appropriate to the purpose; you have a safe haven when you're down to your last legal gas and your last option...a sure bet. That's an alternate. Anything else wouldn't be wise.

That has got to be the longest post I have ever seen......