Fuel requirements

Captain said:
You get there by taking off and going to your takeoff alternate.

The idea is the weather is below mins where you're at. If you lose an engine on takeoff after V1 you continue and the FAA wants to make sure you have a place to go that isn't 14 hours away. Takeoff alternate requirements vary slightly but as a general rule it needs to be no more than an hour away from your departure airport and needs to satisfy the same weather requirements as a normal alternate...ie 400/1 and 200 1/2 rule.
Click to expand...

I kinda figured. Its just a funny term.

I have used the concept. On my first flight in actual IMC (in Colorado there's not much IMC that a NA, non-FIKI GA bird can fly in) I was departing an airport that had no IAP, so once I entered the clouds, there was no way back. I didn't think it was a big issue since the weather was better than 800-2 and my flight plan had me going over an airport less than 10 minutes to the North with plenty of IAPs to choose from.
 
I'm gonna add a little thread bloat here:

If one is doing a round-robin IFR flight in IMC, does one still need to file an alternate (assuming the departure airport is not better than 2000-3)?

On a completely unrelated note, I flew a round-robin IFR from KAPA today. I made 3 practice approaches in actual IMC, and it was awesome. Totally smooth beautiful puffy clouds against the mountains. There were several planes doing VFR pattern work just below the clounds at around 800 AGL.
 
Add in that neither XM nor ADS-B are considered "official" weather sources, and this conversation gets even more fun. ;)
 
COFlyBoy said:
I kinda figured. Its just a funny term.
Click to expand...

"Takeoff alternate" is just the vernacular. The FAA calls it an "alternate airport for departure." But even that seems a bit odd.

I have used the concept. On my first flight in actual IMC (in Colorado there's not much IMC that a NA, non-FIKI GA bird can fly in) I was departing an airport that had no IAP, so once I entered the clouds, there was no way back. I didn't think it was a big issue since the weather was better than 800-2 and my flight plan had me going over an airport less than 10 minutes to the North with plenty of IAPs to choose from.
Click to expand...
That's called "good headwork" no matter what term you apply to the concept.
 
COFlyBoy said:
I'm gonna add a little thread bloat here:

If one is doing a round-robin IFR flight in IMC, does one still need to file an alternate (assuming the departure airport is not better than 2000-3)?
Click to expand...
If the airport which is both departure point and filed destination doesn't have both 1-2-3 weather and an approach you can fly, you must file an alternate and have alternate fuel. The weather at the other points in that round robin is immaterial (unless you want to use one of them as your filed alternate).

OTOH, if you file one flight plan for each leg, you may have to file an alternate on each one of them. It might be the same place for all the legs, it might be different for some or all, but if you don't have the weather and approach at the destination on that flight plan, you must have an alternate on that flight plan.

On a completely unrelated note, I flew a round-robin IFR from KAPA today. I made 3 practice approaches in actual IMC, and it was awesome. Totally smooth beautiful puffy clouds against the mountains.
Click to expand...
Kinda cool, isn't it? You take off, pop into the goo, fly around seeing nothing but gray, and then the runway magically pops into view in front of you.

here were several planes doing VFR pattern work just below the clounds at around 800 AGL.
Click to expand...
Always a concern -- not everyone follows the 500-below rule, and you can get a rude surprise. That's one reason I want to be on CTAF at least five miles out and stay there until clear of the runway -- no switching off to cancel in close to the airport.
 
denverpilot said:
Add in that neither XM nor ADS-B are considered "official" weather sources, and this conversation gets even more fun. ;)
Click to expand...
Where is that written? Other than a 121 operator (who can get that stuff from dispatch anyway) or someone like that, I can't think of any reason you can't rely on TAF's or FA's obtained via those sources to decide in flight whether or not you have 1-2-3 weather at your re-filed new destination. No, you won't be able to prove you obtained that weather, but it's awfully unlikely the FAA will ever be asking the question or that even if they do, that your credibility will be questioned if you tell them that's how you made the determination.
 
Agreed, use everything you have available to you.

I'm just saying... We all know some over-achiever lawyer will make hay with it.

As far as the devil in the details goes...

There's a number of Flash videos on the FAA site that are targeted at prepping pilots for ADS-B who all warn it's "not a substitute" for official weather.

Additionally, in my opinion, I seriously doubt the unencrypted non-secured broadcasts of ADS-B would pass even QICP which is required for Internet weather sources to be "official". Although I'm sure the FAA will make an exception for themselves for unencrypted unauthenticated easy to spoof data broadcasts. Haha. (Advisory Circular 00-62)

ADS-B probably won't meet those outage standards for quite a while yet either.

---- QICP sidebar -----
Just noticed that some sites claim XM got the certification but they're no longer listed. Probably due to outages? Here's the list of QICP approved sources.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/operations/qicp/approved/
----- End sidebar -----

AIM 7-1-2 needs an update, badly.

AIM 7-1-3 defines Primary and Secondary weather sources, but good luck finding any weather sources that use that nice simple terminology.

It also "clarifies" that Part 91 operators can use non-QICP Internet sources, but haven't there been cases where our Majesty the Chief Counsel has said Part 91 operators without a record of having a briefing from an official (note: not "Primary" or "Secondary", the already agreed-upon terms in the AIM) source would be considered uninformed?

AIM 7-1-11 gets down to it...

"2. FIS should not serve as the sole source of aviation weather and other operational information. ATC, FSSs and, if applicable, AOCC VHF/HF voice remain as a redundant method of communicating aviation weather, NOTAMs, and other operational information to aircraft in flight. FIS augments these traditional ATC/FSS/AOCC services and, for some products, offers the advantage of being displayed as graphical information. By using FIS for orientation, the usefulness of information received from conventional means may be enhanced. For example, FIS may alert the pilot to specific areas of concern that will more accurately focus requests made to FSS or AOCC for inflight updates or similar queries made to ATC."

RTCA has some GREAT looking documents about the engineering that could be analyzed for significant reasons why or why not a particular service might have engineering limitations or not, and none of those documents are necessarily law or FAA policy. But they're light years aheadof FAA documentation I've found.

They're also $300 a pop so I won't be seeing them any time soon. Would love to read DO-290 and variants. DO-260 looks fun too, but doesn't cover the new 900 MHz stuff. Geek reading material. Mmm. Tasty.
 
Only pedantic nit to add. Just because you file an alternate you arent obligated to use it.

It's a paperwork and planning exercise.

You can land anywhere you can get in. You have to have fuel + 45 mind to satisfy your filed plan (and filed alternate)
 
Doggtyred said:
Only pedantic nit to add. Just because you file an alternate you arent obligated to use it.

It's a paperwork and planning exercise.

You can land anywhere you can get in. You have to have fuel + 45 mind to satisfy your filed plan (and filed alternate)
Click to expand...

Exactly. In fact, I often file an alternate that is much further away than necessary. The whole point of the alternate is fuel planning and by making an alternate further away it simply puts more fuel on the plane giving me more options at the destination if things go south.


Btw, I'm getting a twinge of de ja vu. Seems like I've been here before talking about alternates being for lost coms...weird.
 
The big issue for QICP is not the "officialness" of the data, but whether you can prove you got all available information pertinent to your flight. QICP leaves a record of who got the brief, when they got it, and what was in it. Weather obtained by data link is just as accurate and reliable, but there's no record of your obtaining it. If that were the standard, you couldn't use AWOS or ASOS to get altimeter settings for approaches. It's only an issue if the question of whether or not you got it, not the accuracy or reliability, so unless your credibility is in doubt, the issue will not arise.
 
Ron Levy said:
The big issue for QICP is not the "officialness" of the data, but whether you can prove you got all available information pertinent to your flight. QICP leaves a record of who got the brief, when they got it, and what was in it. Weather obtained by data link is just as accurate and reliable, but there's no record of your obtaining it. If that were the standard, you couldn't use AWOS or ASOS to get altimeter settings for approaches. It's only an issue if the question of whether or not you got it, not the accuracy or reliability, so unless your credibility is in doubt, the issue will not arise.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's why ATC has you say on the radio you have received the ATIS or Wx. You saying, "ATIS delta" or "I have the weather" puts it on tape.

FltPlan.com just sent out a newsletter recently suggesting pilots log in when they get their weather for this very reason. If you don't log in and just get the Wx off the login page there is no record and you could be in a spot trying to prove you did familiarize yourself for the flight.
 
Captain said:
Actually, that's why ATC has you say on the radio you have received the ATIS or Wx. You saying, "ATIS delta" or "I have the weather" puts it on tape.
Click to expand...
no different than getting via satellite and saying the same on the radio -- either way, there is no proof that you actually got it or what you got.
FltPlan.com just sent out a newsletter recently suggesting pilots log in when they get their weather for this very reason. If you don't log in and just get the Wx off the login page there is no record and you could be in a spot trying to prove you did familiarize yourself for the flight.
Click to expand...
For preflight purposes, that is a significant point. Once you're in the air, 91.103 is moot.
 
Captain said:
Actually, that's why ATC has you say on the radio you have received the ATIS or Wx. You saying, "ATIS delta" or "I have the weather" puts it on tape.

FltPlan.com just sent out a newsletter recently suggesting pilots log in when they get their weather for this very reason. If you don't log in and just get the Wx off the login page there is no record and you could be in a spot trying to prove you did familiarize yourself for the flight.
Click to expand...
The reason ATC needs to know if you have the ATIS is that if you don't, they have to give you the information.
 
kkoran said:
The reason ATC needs to know if you have the ATIS is that if you don't, they have to give you the information.
Click to expand...

Then why do they often say, 'let me know when you have it'?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Because what they are doing is passing the ball back to you to go get it. As in, they don't have time to read it to you.
Click to expand...

Okay, why make me report it? Why not just take my word that I'll go get it?

This is a circular argument. I stand by the concept that the FAA wants to hear on tape that a pilot has the weather for a landing airport.
 
Captain said:
I stand by the concept that the FAA wants to hear on tape that a pilot has the weather for a landing airport.
Click to expand...

If you don't like my explanation, by all means stand by yours. Personally, I don't care one way or the other.

By the way, Aeronautical Information Manual, section 4-1-13 explains all about ATIS. Nowhere in there does it say anything about getting on tape that the pilot has the ATIS information.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's misleading. A VFR plane never has the opportunity to 'get it on tape'.

I was speaking of IFR. ATC certianly makes you say it. I'd imagine part of it is to get it on tape that you have the weather. It protects everyone. If I land at an uncontrolled field with a 25 kt tailwind and ATC never verified I had the weather then we're both on the hook. If he did then I'm the only one on the hook.

Point is ATC always (in my experience flying IFR) makes me say on the radio I have the weather. Without exception that happens and I doubt it's because they are super nice 100% of the time. I suppose there is a requirement for them to get that transmission from me...on the radio...which is available to the NTSB in the event I crash.
 
Captain said:
Well, that's misleading. A VFR plane never has the opportunity to 'get it on tape'.
Click to expand...

They talk to the tower that has the ATIS, don't they? They most certainly DO have the opportunity to get it on tape. Unless they operate NORDO.

I was speaking of IFR.
Click to expand...

Why would it make a difference?

ATC certianly makes you say it.
Click to expand...

That is not an absolute, because I am sure there are times when I didn't say those words and I was never called on it.

I'd imagine part of it is to get it on tape that you have the weather. It protects everyone.
Click to expand...

Maybe so.

If I land at an uncontrolled field with a 25 kt tailwind and ATC never verified I had the weather then we're both on the hook. If he did then I'm the only one on the hook.
Click to expand...

You have obviously not landed at many uncontrolled fields. What about fields that have no weather information. AWOS and ASOS are relatively new things, and not ALL uncontrolled fields have them. Hard to get a report from a field that doesn't report.

Point is ATC always (in my experience flying IFR) makes me say on the radio I have the weather. Without exception that happens and I doubt it's because they are super nice 100% of the time. I suppose there is a requirement for them to get that transmission from me...on the radio...which is available to the NTSB in the event I crash.
Click to expand...

Your experience is different than mine.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
They talk to the tower that has the ATIS, don't they? They most certainly DO have the opportunity to get it on tape. Unless they operate NORDO.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever been NORDO in my life. Many airports do not have a tower.


Greg Bockelman said:
Why would it make a difference?
Click to expand...

Because if I'm VFR into an non-towered field I never talk to ATC.

Greg Bockelman said:
That is not an absolute, because I am sure there are times when I didn't say those words and I was never called on it.
Click to expand...

Not my experience. I've always been asked.

Greg Bockelman said:
You have obviously not landed at many uncontrolled fields. What about fields that have no weather information. AWOS and ASOS are relatively new things, and not ALL uncontrolled fields have them. Hard to get a report from a field that doesn't report.
Click to expand...

Don't know where to start.

I land at uncontrolled fields ALL THE TIME. Fields with no weather? I don't think I've ever done that except once I landed on a ranchers private strip. I over flew the strip and looked at the sock.

AWOS and ASOS are new? Okay, well I've been flying since 1995 and they've been around since then. If 17 years is new then okay...they're new.

Also, never said they 'all' have them. But MOST do.


Greg Bockelman said:
Your experience is different than mine.
Click to expand...

Obviously it is. Stand by for my 'new map' in my signature line. I'm going to change it from 'states flown' to a better representation of where I've been.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
Fields with no weather? I don't think I've ever done that except once I landed on a ranchers private strip.
Click to expand...
In all those places on your map you've never flown into an airport with no weather? That was pretty common up until about 10-15 years ago at small airports. You said you trained at KBJC in the late 1980s. I don't think Erie, Boulder or Longmont had weather back then.
 
Ron Levy said:
The big issue for QICP is not the "officialness" of the data, but whether you can prove you got all available information pertinent to your flight. QICP leaves a record of who got the brief, when they got it, and what was in it. Weather obtained by data link is just as accurate and reliable, but there's no record of your obtaining it. If that were the standard, you couldn't use AWOS or ASOS to get altimeter settings for approaches. It's only an issue if the question of whether or not you got it, not the accuracy or reliability, so unless your credibility is in doubt, the issue will not arise.
Click to expand...

That QICP certification document also addresses security of the data enroute between FAA and your eyeballs, and also calls out minimum standards for the speed at which it's passed from FAA through the third-party system.

The part that floors me is that FIS-B is completely and utterly insecure. Even after moving it from the squitter ti a whole new specification on 900 MHz to get more bandwidth.

Anyone with medium levels of knowledge and skill will be able to spoof a broadcast. People already know how to decode ACARS and it'll only be a relatively short while until free software will decode FIS-B with a laptop and a sound card.

I see zero effort to authenticate that data with a digital signature anywhere in the ADS-B data stream in all the documents I've read. Hopefully they did it in the pay-to-read engineering documentation.

Timeliness, it'd probably meet those requirements.

Since ADS-B Out does have the capability of random messages sent from the aircraft, if folks are thinking about it, the "did the pilot actually see this weather data and exactly which data did they see" can be handled by custom return messaging on the "Out" side of a in/out equipped avionics stack. Eventually.
 
I ensure that I'm on the record for weather briefings; whether it's getting an in-person briefing or logging in somewhere to get the weather, I get it.

When I did pop-up short notice air ambulance work, I picked up the brief on the way to the airport. Even for a short flight where I already knew the weather, I got the brief and filed on the way to the airplane.

When I make a trip, I keep a copy of all the flight details, including weather. Same for arrival at the destination; I write it down, as always. I may notify ATC that I have ATIS B, or the minute weather, but if ATC asks and I advise them "no," they'll either have me go off frequency to get it or they'll give it to me.

There are many different sources of weather; not all of them put you on the record for receipt. What's important is that you get it.

With my current flying, I have to document a weather briefing within an hour of departure. I usually print it out and tack it onto the flight release. If I'm enroute and experience a change in destination, I ensure that the current weather is copied and noted.

I believe someone in this thread stated that once airborne, 14 CFR 91.103 no longer applies, and that's untrue. It continues to apply throughout the flight, especially as things change, and if something occurs which calls a crew member's conduct into question (or resutls in an investigation), one may need to prove compliance with the regulation, including 91.103.
 
Everskyward said:
In all those places on your map you've never flown into an airport with no weather? That was pretty common up until about 10-15 years ago at small airports. You said you trained at KBJC in the late 1980s. I don't think Erie, Boulder or Longmont had weather back then.
Click to expand...

No, I've never flight trained in BJC. I did grow up in that area...but that was pre- Navy. I've not lived there since...although I'd love to go back.
 
As regards getting the ATIS letter on the tape, controllers are required to give you the data unless you give them the current letter, so forcing you to say the letter is a CYA for the controller. As regards nontowered airports, they don't have ATIS, so there's no letter to get on tape, but when the local altimeter is required for the approach, whatever ATC owns that airspace will make sure you announce on tape that you have it. Again, it's CYA for the controller.
 
DouglasBader said:
I believe someone in this thread stated that once airborne, 14 CFR 91.103 no longer applies, and that's untrue.
Click to expand...
The title of that section is "Preflight action," and it begins, "Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight..."

It continues to apply throughout the flight, especially as things change, and if something occurs which calls a crew member's conduct into question (or resutls in an investigation), one may need to prove compliance with the regulation, including 91.103.
Click to expand...
While things that happen in flight may call into question whether or not the pilot complied with 91.103 before beginning the flight, 91.103 does not apply to anything you do after beginning the flight. Any failure to obtain information during the flight would have to be charged under another section such as the catch-all 91.13 careless/reckless.
 
Ron Levy said:
but when the local altimeter is required for the approach, whatever ATC owns that airspace will make sure you announce on tape that you have it. Again, it's CYA for the controller.
Click to expand...
We're supposed to say the current altimeter setting at an uncontrolled airport over the CTAF before we land? I've never done this and I've never heard anyone do this (not saying that's what's right, however). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant when you said "when the local altimeter is required for the approach."
 
Tracey said:
We're supposed to say the current altimeter setting at an uncontrolled airport over the CTAF before we land? I've never done this and I've never heard anyone do this (not saying that's what's right, however). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant when you said "when the local altimeter is required for the approach."
Click to expand...


Not the CTAF and not the altimeter. The approach ATC will want to hear that you have the 'Weather" before they hand you off to do the approach.
 
Tracey said:
We're supposed to say the current altimeter setting at an uncontrolled airport over the CTAF before we land? I've never done this and I've never heard anyone do this (not saying that's what's right, however). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant when you said "when the local altimeter is required for the approach."
Click to expand...

Tracey, making sure you have the right altimeter setting for an instrument approach is one of the "shared" controller/pilot responsibilities. You're supposed to get it from the ATIS/AWOS, and the controller is going to either give it to you, or ask you a question to ensure that you have it.
But we're talking IFR stuff here.

For VFR, you are of course supposed to get the altimeter from AWOS/ATIS, and if you're talking to a tower controller, you should let him know you have the weather, and if it's an ATIS give him the letter. That tells the controller that you have the weather AND the various other stuff (taxiway closures, birds, etc) that make up the ATIS recording.
Sometimes you'll report the weather and the controller will give you a different altimeter setting. That's because it's changed since the ATIS was recorded, but not enough to require a new ATIS recording. They'll also if they have time tell you the current winds, particularly if they're "interesting" in terms of directional variability or gustiness.
 
Captain said:
Stand by for my 'new map' in my signature line. I'm going to change it from 'states flown' to a better representation of where I've been.
Click to expand...

Tell you what. I have backed up my position with a reference, Aeronautical Information section 4-1-13.

When you back your position up with a reference, I will reconsider my position.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Tell you what. I have backed up my position with a reference, Aeronautical Information section 4-1-13.

When you back your position up with a reference, I will reconsider my position.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure what we're talking about. Number of times to BJC? Wind shear?
 
Ron Levy said:
That's a 121 thing not applicable to normal Part 91 ops, where there is no takeoff alternate rule.
Click to expand...

There is no takeoff anything for basic Part 91 IFR. Yes, you must follow a SID if assigned, but that does not affect the takeoff phase. Nor do any weather minimums stated on the SID have any application.
 
Captain said:
I'm not even sure what we're talking about. Number of times to BJC? Wind shear?
Click to expand...

LMAO. Really?

We have differing opinions about why one reports having ATIS information on initial call to Approach Control or Tower.
 
Ron Levy said:
As regards getting the ATIS letter on the tape, controllers are required to give you the data unless you give them the current letter, so forcing you to say the letter is a CYA for the controller. As regards nontowered airports, they don't have ATIS, so there's no letter to get on tape, but when the local altimeter is required for the approach, whatever ATC owns that airspace will make sure you announce on tape that you have it. Again, it's CYA for the controller.
Click to expand...

The local altimeter is not always available. That is why some IAPs have a remote altimeter setting source (RASS in TERPs-speak) on the chart. Then, some IAPs have two altimeter settings, the further away of which requires a second, higher set of minimums.

I know you know this, but the thread needs it stated.
 
Tracey said:
We're supposed to say the current altimeter setting at an uncontrolled airport over the CTAF before we land?
Click to expand...
No. CTAF isn't ATC. For IFR operations, ATC has to hear you say you have the appropriate altimeter setting before clearing you for an instrument approach, and they won't release you to CTAF until at least that point. There are a number of ways to do that, including saying the ATIS letter, reading back a setting the controller gave you, or telling the controller you have the "one-minute weather" for ASOS/AWOS. But you must do one or the controller can't issue the approach clearance.

IOW, we're talking strictly about communication with ATC during IFR ops -- not VFR on CTAF.
 
aterpster said:
The local altimeter is not always available. That is why some IAPs have a remote altimeter setting source (RASS in TERPs-speak) on the chart. Then, some IAPs have two altimeter settings, the further away of which requires a second, higher set of minimums.

I know you know this, but the thread needs it stated.
Click to expand...
Point taken, but the controller has to hear you say you have whatever altimeter setting the chart calls for being used (primary or alternate, as some approaches have both with higher mins for the alternate setting).
 
Greg Bockelman said:
LMAO. Really?

We have differing opinions about why one reports having ATIS information on initial call to Approach Control or Tower.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that. You don't agree that if I crash (IFR flight) because I never checked the weather the FAA and NTSB is going to review the tape and see if I reported having it?

Further, if I did report having it then the investigation is going to focus on me and my actions leading to the crash and if I DIDN'T report it the investigation is going to include the controller and why he didn't get me to report it.

Much of what we do is required to be recorded and the reason is so the flight can be reconstructed later if metal gets bent. From historical weather to saved radar plots to taped ATC transmissions to fltplan.com keeping a record of users. It all get saved for the purpose of future investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top