Alternate Airport Selection Minimum

[dtuuri]

You are using creative and unrealistic flight planning to get out of a climb requirement which doesn't exist.

You are completely changing the rule to suit yourself. The rule says "after that", you changed it to say "before that", otherwise you can't make what you do fit.

What good is being at cruise altitude when you get to the alternate?

1) It complies with the reg for figuring the reserve. 2) It's a more conservative fuel burn (see your flight to KSEA).

I'm not disregarding the "after that" language.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

We disagree on the climb requirement. The reg says the reserve fuel has to be 45 minutes at normal cruise. It says nothing about climbing.

Right, but if you want to carry anything else besides fuel you better climb. Loitering around at normal cruise at pattern altitude takes a lot of fuel.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

You are completely changing the rule to suit yourself. The rule says "after that", you changed it to say "before that", otherwise you can't make what you do fit.

I have no idea why you think that. You plan the flight so that after you get to the alternate you need to have the equivalent of 45 minute of fuel in normal cruise left. What you actually have left is irrelevant because it is a planning requirement. In reality you don't need to go to your planned alternate either.

1) It complies with the reg for figuring the reserve. 2) It's a more conservative fuel burn (see your flight to KSEA).

But you are trying to weasel out of what you think is a climb requirement by planning this way.

Right, but if you want to carry anything else besides fuel you better climb. Loitering around at normal cruise at pattern altitude takes a lot of fuel.

But what you actually do can be different from what the planning requirement is. Besides, in some instances you wouldn't climb, such as if there was another airport close by.

 

[dtuuri]

You plan the flight so that after you get to the alternate you need to have the equivalent of 45 minute of fuel in normal cruise left.

There is no "equivalent" in the rule. You made it up.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

There is no "equivalent" in the rule. You made it up.

I think you are now just arguing to argue.

 

[dtuuri]

I think you are now just arguing to argue.

Aw, you always have to have the last word. I should have just sent you this link (see slides #9 thru #16) and let it go at that. Would've got more grass cut...

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

Aw, you always have to have the last word. I should have just sent you this link (see slides #9 thru #16) and let it go at that. Would've got more grass cut...

Of course you think that link is the correct way of thinking. You put together the presentation.



For one thing your slide 10 contradicts what you told me that you do (compute fuel to overhead the destination then transport yourself to field elevation), although it does have you overflying the alternate which I still think is crazy and also contrary to the Chief Counsel's opinion. Then you throw in that "three climbs" statement without any documentation.

 

[weilke]

I think you are now just arguing to argue.

Ask him about pattern entry

 

[dtuuri]

For one thing your slide 10 contradicts what you told me that you do (compute fuel to overhead the destination then transport yourself to field elevation), ...

No contradiction, since I explained both the rule and my technique for compliance and even the Chief Counsel's interpretation.

Then you throw in that "three climbs" statement without any documentation.

You want documentation for what, "after that" means "not before that"? Or Part 91.167(a)(3) comes in sequence after 91.167(a)(2)?

Will you take logic instead? In the Gallagher letter "missed approach fuel" equals "landing fuel". Since you land at the alternate, you need "missed approach fuel" there too. That's a climb. G'nite.

dtuuri

 

[Henning]

You have to pick your alternate based on the availability of an approach that you are capable of flying (i.e., you are equipped for, it's not NOTAM'd out, and it's not N/A or below the published or standard alternate minimums).

As pointed out, not monitoring a navaid is one of the reasons that the approach may be NA. Obviously and ILS is sort of a local thing. VORs typically are monitored elsewhere. GPS approaches don't need external monitoring (though as already pointed out, if you're not using a WAAS unit, you can't use it for the alternate either).

The rules are specified in 3.4 of the TERPS (order 8260.3). It depends on weather availability, lighting, as well as monitoring.

What I don't get about that is if the non monitoring of the approach makes it unavailable as an alternate, what makes it then suitable as a primary?

 

[flyingron]

I'm not sure that we are disagreeing. You need to have enough fuel to get to your destination, including doing the approach, then enough to get to the alternate (if required), do the approach and landing there, plus 45 minutes. I'm not sure where dtuuri is getting the "third climb" though.

Nope that's not what I said. I guess I am disagreeing.

 

[flyingron]

What I don't get about that is if the non monitoring of the approach makes it unavailable as an alternate, what makes it then suitable as a primary?

It's the non-monitoring of the navaid actually.

But the reason is the same reason the weather minimums are higher. The alternate is a safety net with supposed higher probability of actually being successfully usable.

Same reason why you can file IFR to an airport with no approaches at all as a primary. As long as you have a reliable alternate (and sufficient fuel to get there), you're free to try (if you're a part 91 operator).