IFR Alternates

[schoolio]

My question is at the end; this stuff up top is all background info.

OK, so we all know when we have to pick an alternate under Part 91, right? That's pretty cut and dry. Or is it?

§ 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions) to--
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and...

So bottom line is that you must always file an alternate unless

(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:
(i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will be at least 3 statute miles.

So to pick out that alternate, we use 91.169(c):

(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.
(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.

Some of the people that I'm in groundschool with keep jabbering about GPS approaches and unmonitored NAVAIDs. Specifically, they say that if you file to an airport that only has GPS approaches, you must file an alternate unless descent from MEA in VFR...that whole thing. They also say that if the approach to be used at the destination has unmonitored NAVAIDs, you must file an alternate.

They are also saying that as far as alternate selection goes, you can't pick an airport as an alternate if it only has GPS approaches, or if the approach to be used has unmonitored NAVAIDs.

I call BS on this. In the Army we had a reg that said all of those things. I've searched and searched and cannot find anything in the FARs that say those things. There's one little note in the AIM that says (AIM 1-1-19(h)):

Any required alternate airport must have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly.

So here's the question: does anyone know where I can find the GPS/unmonitored NAVAID info in some sort of regulatory publication?

Thanks for reading this far.
_________________
Schoolio

 

[A Squared]

You found it (about GPS and Alternates) In the AIM, what more do you want?

OK, I know how this conversation goes. You say "But the AIM's not regulatory"

Well, you're right, as far as that goes. The AIM, by itself, is not regulatory. However, it is a collection of information from a number of different sources, and much of the information *is* regulatory, because it is drawn from a regulatory source (not because it's published in the AIM) I would say, that as a general rule, if you read something in the AIM which is stated in the imperative (ie: Must, shall, may not, prohibited, required, etc) it's probably *very* likely that it is regulatory, even though it may be difficult to find that specifically in the regulations.

I don't have the answers to your specific questions. I've never heard the part about requiring an alternate if your only approach is GPS, Probably because I'd done my instrument training long before GPS approached were around, and virtually all of my IFR flying has been done under 121 int. supp., where we are required to file an alternate all the time, so it hasn't been an issue.

I also hadn't heard that an you couldn't use an alternate with an unmonitored navaid, but that may just be a gap in my knowledge. I'd be interested to hear more about that.

I have heard that you can't use a GPS approach as an alternate, Read it in the AIM, like you, and I just always assumed it was true. As to where this comes from, I don't know. Certainly, it is not in part 91. My guess is that it is buried somewhere in the documentation associated with approving GPS for standalone approaches, perhaps in a TSO or something.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

I am 99% positive that your alternate airport cannot be a GPS only airport. If you look at the back of the airport diagram (jepp) you will find that all (and Im going out on a limb here) GPS only airports are NA for an alternate.

As far as unmonitored navaids, I call BS on that as well. That is when you usually find that navaid based approach (ILS approaches to KTVF come to mind) that are unmonitored cannot be used as alternate airports. Not saying you can not use that approach when you get there, just that you cannont use the wx minimia for that approach to determine your alternate, ie, for KTVF, you wouldn't be able to use 600-2, and if the VOR was OTS, then you cannot use KTVF as alternate, even though you have a GPS and the ILS is working.

Remember, the alternate airport thingy is more of a fuel consideration than the absolute, final, written in stone, etc etc, place you must go if you cannot get into your destination. Not saying, you stay and hold and wait for the wx to come up at your destination while you burn your alternate fuel, remember you are free to go elsewhere.

 

[schoolio]

bump...anyone else have any info?

Thanks.

 

[avbug]

First of all:

So bottom line is that you must always file an alternate unless

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:

Not all airports can be used as alternate airports. An airport may not be qualified for alternate use if the airport NAVAID is unmonitored, is Global Positioning System (GPS) based, or if it does not have weather reporting capabilities. For an airport to be used as an alternate, the forecast weather at that airport must meet certain qualifications at the estimated time of arrival. Standard alternate minimums for a precision approach are a 600-foot ceiling and 2 SM visibility. For a non-precision approach, the minimums are an 800-foot ceiling and 2 SM visibility. Standard alternate minimums apply unless higher alternate minimums are listed for an airport.

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

NOTE
Any required alternate airport must have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly.

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:

(8) For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport must still have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate.

NOTE
Coincident with WAAS commissioning, the FAA will begin removing the NA (Alternate Minimums Not Authorized) symbol from select RNAV (GPS) and GPS approach procedures so they may be used by approach approved WAAS receivers at alternate airports. This does not change the above alternate airport requirements for users of GPS TSO-C129/129A, Airborne Supplemental Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning System (GPS), receivers.

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:

7. Unlike TSO-C129 avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown.

(a) Due to initial system limitation, there are certain restrictions on WAAS operations. Pilots may plan to use any instrument approach authorized for use with WAAS avionics at a required alternate. However, when using WAAS at an alternate airport, flight planning must be based on flying the RNAV (GPS) LNAV minima line, or minima on a GPS approach procedure, or conventional approach procedure with "or GPS" in the title. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 91 nonprecision weather requirements must be used for planning. Upon arrival at an alternate, when the WAAS navigation system indicates that LNAV/VNAV or LPV service is available, then vertical guidance may be used to complete the approach using the displayed level of service. The FAA has begun removing the NA (Alternate Minimums Not Authorized) symbol from select RNAV (GPS) and GPS approach procedures so they may be used by approach approved WAAS receivers at alternate airports. Some approach procedures will still require the NA for other reasons, such as no weather reporting, so it cannot be removed from all procedures. Since every procedure must be individually evaluated, removal of the NA from RNAV (GPS) and GPS procedures will take some time.

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

6. A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is required. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely require DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate.

The same chapter also states:

If proceeding to an alternate airport, the avionics necessary to receive all of the ground-based facilities appropriate for the route to the alternate airport must be installed and operational. The alternate airport must be served by an approach based on other than GPS or LORAN-C navigation, the aircraft must have operational equipment capable of using that navigation aid, and the required navigation aid must be operational.

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:

c. Alternate Airport Requirements. An alternate airport (if required by the applicable operating rules) must be served by an approved instrument approach procedure based on a navigation system other than GPS or Loran-C and the aircraft must be properly equipped to conduct that approach.

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.

 

[schoolio]

Thanks to everyone who replied. Wouldn't it be nice if the FAA could just put something like

c. Alternate Airport Requirements. An alternate airport (if required by the applicable operating rules) must be served by an approved instrument approach procedure based on a navigation system other than GPS or Loran-C and the aircraft must be properly equipped to conduct that approach.

in Part 91? :smash:

 

[avbug]

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?

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

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

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

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Avbug should be an educator. He's real knowledegable and willing to explain things thoroughly.

I

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Avbug should be an educator. He's real knowledegable and willing to explain things thoroughly.

I happen to agree

 

[avbug]

Wannabe/splits/350driver...dense doesn't adequately describe you. Bloody idiot comes awfully close, but isn't quite there yet, either.

The quotes I posted were from FAA publications. All of them. Avbug didn't write them...but the Administrator certainly did. That's official information from official government publications, quoted verbatim. Still not good enough for you, apparently.

That you are arguing or complaining, or whining about quotes straight from the FAA publications speaks volumes for you.

Here's advice from me: you need to quit now. You looked foolish when you began, you look downright stupid now...and you can only make yourself look worse. Give it up.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

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

The administrator wrote this? Wow...My bad.

Your character flaw is evident in so many of your posts. Talking in the third person now? I think you need to seek professional help. I'll help, "Hi I am Avbug and I am a flightinfo junkie.............."

 

[avbug]

Yes, the Administrator is responsible for all FAA publications, all FAA rulings, regulation, decision, policy, practice, budget, etc. All of it. By an act of congress, no less. Any FAA policy, statement, or publication is the voice of the Administrator. Numerous individuals write and work for the Administrator, but any FAA publication is the word of the Administrator.

Accordingly, the words of the AIM are the words of the Administrator, whom takes full responsibility.

You didn't know that. Did you? Good god. You're dense.

So the words of the administrator, quoted verbatim from official FAA publications available to the general public (the part of the public that's not too lazy to read them) are my character flaw, are they? I've had worse, but far more logical, accusations, you ding bat. Quoting the Administrator is a character flaw?

Let's look at some of your own recent comments, seeing as you just won't roll over and die...


From an “If given a choice of airplanes,” thread:

1900...it is newer and a big step towards a King Air job someday. Then again, maybe the one with a working autopilot!

That one doesn't really need much explaination, of course. The BE-1900 is a step up toward that treasured king air job, some day, you say. Doofus, the 1900 is a king air...and not really a stepping stone down to smaller king airs. Even though it might be your choice of airplane.

Instructing is scary stuff. Even more scary when your name is in somebody's logbook, but you are not in the plane if they screw up. I know plenty of guys that have had the Feds come a calling long after the last time they flew with whomever screwed up. You are on the hook for 2 years if you sign somebody's BFR off. I'm going to have a nightmare tonight just thinking about it.

Terrifying. Even though we've all done it, apparently a lot more than you...we're blessed to know it scares the socks off you. Tone it down a bit, though. For a 7,100 hour piston ATP who dreams of flying turbine equipment, your inexperience is so loud it hurts. And forget I posted that paragraph...I don't want you reading your own words, remembering what you know nothing about, and having nightmares tonight just thinking about it.

More importantly, make sure that you are/were properly endorsed to fly X aircraft that you logged PIC time in. I know of too many people who got to fly a C421, BE20, P210, but did not have a high altitude endorsement and logged PIC time.

Let's see...that would be you again recently, once more attempting to prove you don't understand the regulation. You're doing well at it, I might add. (Such as this case, in which an endorsement isn't needed to log the time..but you didn't know that either, did you?) You're of course the expert on regulation, the enforcement process, employing mechanics (luckily no regulation there, right?), and piston box flying...speaking of which...here's a classic:

I agree, you are not a true freight dawg if you are on a scheduled route. Sorry all you Airnet and Bankair guys, you are not true freight dawgs. Maybe just a freight dog, but not a true freight dawg.

Luckily freight dogs everywhere have you to look to for guidance, if not expert regulatory instruction...when you're not up all night having nightmares about flight instructing or regretting paying mechanics for a an eight hour day when they worked three...or lying about it on an internet web board. That would be expert counsel such as this recent gem:

There are obviously things that you could have been busted for that probably are not that big of a deal.

Luckily you're the exploiter of loopholes who knows just when to quit...and just what's a big deal and what's not. Lots of time to think about it and study, even if every answer is wrong, becuase you can spend your time practicing these flowery speaches and talking to the boxes...

That is why I like boxes, they don't complain and I don't need a "thank you".

Being a tough mental giant from Chicago, not unlike other pretenders we've had here to cause us a bit of trouble, you know just what it takes as an expert to get through the ice in those boxes, while fending off terrorists, evil posters such as myself, and the world at large...

I have a big maglite too. Keep it in the back pocket of the seat. That way I comply with the reg to have a "D" cell battery or equivelant light (or whatever it is). The best use I find for the maglite is knocking of the ice when I land. I am sure it would do just as well knocking someone out.

You didn't use that flashlight while sneaking down to New Orleans while kidnapping victims recently did you...someone who beats the ice off his airplane with a flashlight sounds a lot like someone here who brags about the terrifying sound of listening to ice breaking off his single cessna in the skies over chicago. Another piston powered wannabe. Like you.

You want to "comply with the reg," but you have no idea what it is. And admit it, while counseling us regarding the regulation. You have mastered irony. Poorly, but you're a master, alrighty then. It's just not your domain.

But you have a humorous side, too, as we see here, in a post in which the individual starting the thread offered to trade a pdf version of a Lear 35 manual for a Lear 60 manual...

In response to an offer to trade a Lear 35 manual for a Lear 60 manual…

I would not mind having a Lear 31 training manual. Not that I need it, just for $hits and giggles.

That's about all you could use that manual for, too...even though you got the wrong aircraft, and the thread was only three posts wrong. Brilliant.

A least YOU find it funny.

You're also a hearsay expert...you hear a lot of things, and apparently that makes you an expert. That Lear 31/35 manual might not help you with this one, but you posted anyway...

I heard from a guy I know that flies 20 series Lears for a well known cargo hauler…While the FO is heading to the back, the Captain asks for an expedited descent to FL230. He gets it, noses over, hits the speed brakes, and goes to flight idle. Turns around to see the FO pinned to the ceiling for about 2 minutes if done properly.

Two long minutes to pin the F/O at flight idle with "speed brakes" extended in a Lear 20-something, hmmm? Two minutes, stuck to the ceiling? I got pinned there once, in a lear. It lasted all of about three seconds. Two minutes...that's some ride. You heard, anyway.

You are the advice-meister...

PM me and I can give you a lot of advice on this topic. I had a presidential TFR violation that everybody told me there was no use fighting.

Most folks might find that a bit embarassing and want to keep quiet about it. Feel fortunate they didn't lose their shorts. Not you, a true freight dog that knocks ice from airplanes with his deadly flashlight, fires greedy bastard mechanics at the drop of a hat, know all about learjets but can't tell a 31 from a 35 (hint, one has winglets) and flies the chicago bears around while avoiding the evil dupage FSDO. You're there to fight for truth, justice, and the chicago way.

continued...

 

[avbug]

...continued:

I took a Chicago Bears doctor down there this weekend.

The DuPage FSDO is out of control.

They're not the ones, by chance that initiated enforcement action against you for busting a presidential TFR, are they?

No matter. So long as a true freight dog such as yourself is there to dole out expert legal advice, anyone finding themselves harrassed into submission by the DuPage FSDO will have your sound counsel to get them by.

Welll I guess you are talking about the expungement program that the FAA has. I think most if not all violations disappear after 5 years.

The down side to dragging it out is that the FAA expungement program time period will not begin until the violation is entered into the final record. After 5 years I think it is, you don't have to tell anybody about it because it will no longer be on your record.

Wait, wait a minute! What was that? You think? You think it's five years? Most violations? If not all of them? You mean you're a closet attorney (not to mention mechanic) and you don't know? You think? But you're an expert! PM you for counsel! You can tell us a lot about these things...or so you think. So you say.

I vote that anybody here should go to a guy that calls himself wannabe first, before making any legal decisions that might affect their career. Sounds like sound thinking to me. Or so says the wannabe.

How many 135 crews have ever gotten a tip from a passenger? Just kind of curious. I usually haul boxes, but once in awhile I put a shirt and tie on and take some folks to a meeting, funeral, vacation, or whatever. I have gotten a tip a couple of times. It always seems a bit odd and I don't really know how to react. One guy actually gave me $150. Kind of thought I could get use to that, but of course it has never happened again.

Are you sure you're not splits/350driver/the massage therapist of whom we dare not speak his name, from Chicago? Sounds a lot like you. Anybody that's been flying for 7,100 hours and is shocked and amazed at getting a tip ("actually gave me $150!") and doesn't know how to react...sounds more fraud than fact. But of course, it could never happen again.

Are all these personalities you? They're quotes from you, you know. I know ou hate the quote feature...the truth is a bear. Sorry it hurts so much.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

sounds like someone got housed by avbug.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

sounds like someone got housed by avbug.

Avbug is looking for roomates?

 

[avbug]

Uh-uh.

I think he meant "hosed."

Avbug isn't looking for garden accessories, either.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Not really. Avbug is great at picking apart just small parts of a statement, just to spin it the way he wants to hear it in his head.

You sure do have a lot of time on your hands there avbug. Man, all your research...you should be proud of yourself. Funny thing is I can't figure out how someone with all the experience that you claim to have, has so much time to spend on here. And no, never claimed to have an ATP. You have skewed the facts once again.

Now to rebuff you once again: Yeah fly the 1900 and then be set up for a corporate BE20 job. Fly for Skyway, Great Lakes, or whoever for $18,000 to $30,000. Then be set up to get that $50,000+ a year job flying corporate BE20. With all the airline cut backs and hiring freezes, it might not be a bad idea. The choice was between a 1900, metro, or MU-2. Seems like the 1900 is the one that could lead directly to another.

Bears Orthopedic surgeon. That is right! Want his phone number. Same contact that I managed to fly Brian Urlacher through.

OK, so I said log PIC time, when actually I meant act as the PIC. Ooops, my bad, but they kind of go hand in hand in most cases.

Yeah, that is right, knock the ice off. As you might know, not all of the aircraft is protected by de-ice or anti-ice equipment. The nose is just one example.

Of course I know the difference between a 31 and a 35. It was mentioned in that thread because I thought Lear drivers of all types might be looking. The obvious escapes you once again.

No, not the DPA FSDO, thus why my POI was willing to give me some advice. Was in the Great Lakes region though. Keep researching, even you can figure it out. Not bragging about it, just thought that guy might need some advice. Sounds like he is in pretty deep. I would not expect someone like you to understand.

Tips, yeah, when you are new to the industry (very early on in my 135 career) and somebody gives you $150....well one might be a little blown away. The spirit of the question was more how often it happens?

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

Really, the administrator wrote this? Not the AIM, dimwit, this statement. What pub. and what page. Really sounded like you attacking yet another member of this forum. Maybe you should take a step back and review your abrasive personality. Obviously why you have so often changed jobs and are insecure about your current one. Most people probably don't much like these kind of statements. I am sure most chose to ignore you, but for now I chose to let you entertain me. Still not offering up anything, huh? Hmmm, great poser move.

 

[Sim Sweat]

Hey avbug ... don't feed the troll, although that was a masterful retort. But it makes me think of the old saw:

"[SIZE=-1]Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the pig."

[/SIZE]

 

[SSDD]

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.

Maybe its the same guy with a different screen name.