IFR to airport without approach - Alternate

Rotor&Wing said:
Why not just cancel your IFR when arriving into VFR conditions if that's the case?
Click to expand...

To eliminate the fuel planning requirement? Not that I think that would be legal.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm.....

What if you're flying a feeder route to a VOR? Would that be considered an approach to a navaid?
 
Ron Levy said:
No, you file to "C63" (for the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63). But you're not allowed to tell them where the ship is -- that's classified information (really -- no kiddin').
Click to expand...

But maybe I'm jus' goin' out there to look fer stuff what can't be seen. :rofl:
 
There are fewer of these type of airports around, but there are airports whose IAP minimums are greater than 2000 feet MDA and visibility equal to or greater than 3 NM. So technically, one can file to one of these airports when the weather is forecast to be below minimums and an alternate is not required. Not smart, but legal. Two examples are KTEX and KASE.
 
roncachamp said:
That's true for VFR operations, but not for IFR operations.
Click to expand...
He said "planning" -- what you plan to do once airborne has no effect on the alternate designation fuel planning issue. IOW, even if you plan to cancel IFR once airborne, you still have to plan for the alternate and plan enough fuel when filing.
 
John Collins said:
There are fewer of these type of airports around, but there are airports whose IAP minimums are greater than 2000 feet MDA and visibility equal to or greater than 3 NM. So technically, one can file to one of these airports when the weather is forecast to be below minimums and an alternate is not required. Not smart, but legal. Two examples are KTEX and KASE.
Click to expand...

For reasons that never made sense to me, this is only true for airplanes. For helicopters there is an additional trigger for the need of an alternater, i.e. if the forecast weather will be less than 400 ft above the published minimums.
 
gismo said:
For reasons that never made sense to me, this is only true for airplanes. For helicopters there is an additional trigger for the need of an alternater, i.e. if the forecast weather will be less than 400 ft above the published minimums.
Click to expand...

Correct.


(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.
 
Ron Levy said:
He said "planning" -- what you plan to do once airborne has no effect on the alternate designation fuel planning issue. IOW, even if you plan to cancel IFR once airborne, you still have to plan for the alternate and plan enough fuel when filing.
Click to expand...

It's a "planning" rule only for flight in VFR conditions, for flight in IFR conditions it's an operational rule.
 
roncachamp said:
It's a "planning" rule only for flight in VFR conditions, for flight in IFR conditions it's an operational rule.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're suggesting that if your destination or alternate forecasts change while you're enroute so that either the destination goes below no-alternate mins or the alternate goes below alternate mins, you must refile to add or change your alternate. That's simply not true. Once airborne under IFR, the FAR's require only that you always have 45 minutes reserve, not that you have to refile alternates if things change.
 
Ron Levy said:
It sounds like you're suggesting that if your destination or alternate forecasts change while you're enroute so that either the destination goes below no-alternate mins or the alternate goes below alternate mins, you must refile to add or change your alternate. That's simply not true. Once airborne under IFR, the FAR's require only that you always have 45 minutes reserve, not that you have to refile alternates if things change.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're reading things that are not there.
 
Ron Levy said:
It sounds like you're suggesting that if your destination or alternate forecasts change while you're enroute so that either the destination goes below no-alternate mins or the alternate goes below alternate mins, you must refile to add or change your alternate. That's simply not true. Once airborne under IFR, the FAR's require only that you always have 45 minutes reserve, not that you have to refile alternates if things change.
Click to expand...

Huh? I don't think EITHER of these are operational rules. You have to plan for enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing, go missed, go to your alternate, and still have 45 minutes.

Once you're airborne, I don't believe you have to refile your alternate if it goes below alternate mins (under 91 anyway), nor do you have to use the alternate you filed, nor do you have to land with 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks.

In other words, if you land with 10 minutes remaining because you held waiting for the weather to improve at your first intended landing point, rather than head for an alternate, you haven't violated any regs.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong, with the appropriate regulation citations.
 
TMetzinger said:
Huh? I don't think EITHER of these are operational rules. You have to plan for enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing, go missed, go to your alternate, and still have 45 minutes.

Once you're airborne, I don't believe you have to refile your alternate if it goes below alternate mins (under 91 anyway), nor do you have to use the alternate you filed, nor do you have to land with 45 minutes of fuel in the tanks.

In other words, if you land with 10 minutes remaining because you held waiting for the weather to improve at your first intended landing point, rather than head for an alternate, you haven't violated any regs.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong, with the appropriate regulation citations.
Click to expand...

§ 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#PartTop (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


(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.


(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:


(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.


(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.


[Doc. No. 98-4390, 65 FR 3546, Jan. 21, 2000]
 
Interesting. So taken literally, it sounds like if you're in IFR conditions, you have to land somewhere before you start to burn your reserve fuel, and if you're in VFR conditions, that requirement doesn't apply even if you are operating under instrument flight rules.
 
roncachamp said:
§ 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


(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.


(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:


(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.


(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.


[Doc. No. 98-4390, 65 FR 3546, Jan. 21, 2000]
Click to expand...


Hmm, now define "IFR conditions" (and this is directed at the FAA, Steve, you've made a good point).

Does "IFR Conditions" = IMC, or "Actual"? or;
Does "IFR Conditions" = Under IFR?

If nobody finds a reference that inspires confidence, I'll write another letter to the Chief Counsel.
 
TMetzinger said:
Hmm, now define "IFR conditions" (and this is directed at the FAA, Steve, you've made a good point).

Does "IFR Conditions" = IMC, or "Actual"? or;
Does "IFR Conditions" = Under IFR?

If nobody finds a reference that inspires confidence, I'll write another letter to the Chief Counsel.
Click to expand...

I wrote them 3 years ago about that. Still waiting for an answer. They have yet to answer any of the letters I've written over the past 4 years.
 
roncachamp said:
It's a "planning" rule only for flight in VFR conditions, for flight in IFR conditions it's an operational rule.
Click to expand...

It is a planning rule that specifies the amount of fuel in terms of reserves you must have on board prior to IFR flight. Once you are airborne and things change, you are not in violation of the rule. Otherwise, a flight that just met the requirements on departure and resulted in the aircraft flying to the first airport of intended landing, conducting an approach, going missed, and continued on to the alternate would be in violation of the rule.
 
TMetzinger said:
Hmm, now define "IFR conditions" (and this is directed at the FAA, Steve, you've made a good point).

Does "IFR Conditions" = IMC, or "Actual"? or;
Does "IFR Conditions" = Under IFR?

If nobody finds a reference that inspires confidence, I'll write another letter to the Chief Counsel.
Click to expand...

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

§ 1.1 General definitions

IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
 
John Collins said:
It is a planning rule that specifies the amount of fuel in terms of reserves you must have on board prior to IFR flight. Once you are airborne and things change, you are not in violation of the rule. Otherwise, a flight that just met the requirements on departure and resulted in the aircraft flying to the first airport of intended landing, conducting an approach, going missed, and continued on to the alternate would be in violation of the rule.
Click to expand...

I suggest you review the rule.
 
roncachamp said:
I suggest you review the rule.
Click to expand...

We actually had this come up in the airline a few years ago when we were rewriting OpSpecs.

John Collins assessment is what the FAA concluded during our review.

John Collins said:
It is a planning rule that specifies the amount of fuel in terms of reserves you must have on board prior to IFR flight. Once you are airborne and things change, you are not in violation of the rule. Otherwise, a flight that just met the requirements on departure and resulted in the aircraft flying to the first airport of intended landing, conducting an approach, going missed, and continued on to the alternate would be in violation of the rule.
Click to expand...
 
Rotor&Wing said:
We actually had this come up in the airline a few years ago when we were rewriting OpSpecs.

John Collins assessment is what the FAA concluded during our review.
Click to expand...

The FAA may believe that "plan" and "operate" are synonyms, but they're not.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Can you provide something in writing to back up your assertion?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a thesaurus.

Main Entry: plan Part of Speech: noun Definition: scheme, design, way of doing things Synonyms:

 aim, angle, animus, arrangement, big picture, contrivance, course of action, deal, device, disposition, expedient, game plan, gimmick, ground plan, idea, intent, intention, layout, machination, meaning, means, method, orderliness, outline, pattern, picture, platform, plot, policy, procedure, program, project, projection, proposal, proposition, purpose, scenario, stratagem, strategy, suggestion, system, tactics, treatment, trick, undertaking



Main Entry: operate Part of Speech: verb Definition: manage, use Synonyms:

 administer, be in charge, be in driver's seat, be in saddle, call the play, call the shots, call the signals, carry on, command, conduct, drive, handle, hold the reins, keep, make go, maneuver, manipulate, ordain, pilot, play, ply, pull the strings, pull the wires, run, run the show, run things, sit on top of, steer, wield, work
 
Dear Mr. Frederick:

Don't be impatient, these things take time. We'll get back to you

Sincerely,

FAA

EdFred said:
I wrote them 3 years ago about that. Still waiting for an answer. They have yet to answer any of the letters I've written over the past 4 years.
Click to expand...
 
Rotor&Wing said:
We actually had this come up in the airline a few years ago when we were rewriting OpSpecs.

John Collins assessment is what the FAA concluded during our review.
Click to expand...

Here's the definition of "Operate"
Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in 91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

Nice and all-encompassing, supporting both John's and R&W's contention that if you're going to cause an airplane to fly in IFR conditions, you have to plan the fuel accordingly.

Of course, it also supports Steve's contention that if you're going to use an airplane in IFR conditions you better have the fuel on board.

I'll be bored on a conference call tomorrow, I'll write a letter to the FAA - so far they've answered all my letters in less than a year, and I'm batting about .666 with them agreeing with me.
 
TMetzinger said:
Hmm, now define "IFR conditions" (and this is directed at the FAA, Steve, you've made a good point).

Does "IFR Conditions" = IMC, or "Actual"? or;
Does "IFR Conditions" = Under IFR?

If nobody finds a reference that inspires confidence, I'll write another letter to the Chief Counsel.
Click to expand...

From a semantics perspective, I'm pretty certain that "Under IFR" vs "Under IFR conditions" would be the wording to imply that the rule applied whenever a flight was conducted on an IFR clearance. Adding the word "conditions" sure seems to imply that actual IMC (e.g. in clouds or other restrictions to visibility).

And FWIW I've always considered that rule to mean that if at any time during your flight to the initial destination it becomes known that you won't arrive there with sufficient fuel to miss and fly to the filed alternate, you'd better come up with a "plan B". IIRC, the declaration of "minimum fuel" implies that you are just about to that point and any further delay will result in having insufficient fuel to deal with a missed approach.
Even if this isn't the "law" it's still a very prudent MO.
 
gismo said:
From a semantics perspective, I'm pretty certain that "Under IFR" vs "Under IFR conditions" would be the wording to imply that the rule applied whenever a flight was conducted on an IFR clearance. Adding the word "conditions" sure seems to imply that actual IMC (e.g. in clouds or other restrictions to visibility).

And FWIW I've always considered that rule to mean that if at any time during your flight to the initial destination it becomes known that you won't arrive there with sufficient fuel to miss and fly to the filed alternate, you'd better come up with a "plan B". IIRC, the declaration of "minimum fuel" implies that you are just about to that point and any further delay will result in having insufficient fuel to deal with a missed approach.
Even if this isn't the "law" it's still a very prudent MO.
Click to expand...

No argument that it's prudent. However, that logic implies that if I comply with the reg from the planning perspective, and have just enough fuel to comply, ANY deviation (enroute hold, stronger headwind, etc) will require a diversion, since I won't have enough fuel to continuously comply with the regulation. That implies a certain amount of additional fuel to deal with those situations in addition to the 45 min reserve. And in that case, what's the 45 minute reserve for? AFTER you've declared an emergency and are thus allowed to deviate from the regs as needed to deal with the emergency?

That logic is at odds with what I was taught, and how I've operated. But I can see the logic in that interpretation from a close reading of the regulation. The main question I want answered is if an airplane lands at it's intended destination or alternate without 45 min of fuel still in the tanks, can the pilot be sanctioned for violating 91.167?
 
Last edited:
It is a planning rule that specifies the amount of fuel in terms of reserves you must have on board prior to IFR flight. Once you are airborne and things change, you are not in violation of the rule.
Click to expand...
I won't claim that this is or isn't the rule, but it seems to me that this is not consistent with the wording of the reg, which I think is pretty clear. So either the FAA has a fairly clearly worded reg but considers the meaning to be something very different from what was written (which would be no surprise, there), or people are deciding what the reg means, based on what they would prefer it to be (which would be no surprise, there, either).
-harry
 
TMetzinger said:
No argument that it's prudent. However, that logic implies that if I comply with the reg from the planning perspective, and have just enough fuel to comply, ANY deviation (enroute hold, stronger headwind, etc) will require a diversion, since I won't have enough fuel to continuously comply with the regulation. That implies a certain amount of additional fuel to deal with those situations in addition to the 45 min reserve. And in that case, what's the 45 minute reserve for? AFTER you've declared an emergency and are thus allowed to deviate from the regs as needed to deal with the emergency?

That logic is at odds with what I was taught, and how I've operated. But I can see the logic in that interpretation from a close reading of the regulation. The main question I want answered is if an airplane lands at it's intended destination or alternate without 45 min of fuel still in the tanks, can the pilot be sanctioned for violating 91.167?
Click to expand...

By my reading of 91.167 the answer is yes if the flight proceeded in IMC when the fuel burn and quantity added up to less than the required fuel. But if you flew into and remained in VMC before the fuel state got below minimums I think you'd be OK WRT 91.167.

AFaIK, as long as the pilot manages to land without running out of fuel, the chances are very slim (at least in part 91) that there would ever be any kind of enforcement action. But even if the rules don't specifically require you to land with 45 minutes of fuel plus the amount required to fly to your alternate in the tanks, the FAA could probably cite you for "Careless and reckless" if they found out you did that and they had a desire to cause you some grief.

As to the options available to you when it appears that you might be coming up shorter than planned fuel wise, there are several (including declaring a fuel emergency). One is to simply slow down, unless you are already operating at the best range speed adjusted for your weight and winds, you can increase your fuel reserves with the engine controls. Sometimes you can also make the airplane more efficient by changing mixture, RPM, and/or altitude. Another choice that's often available is to change your alternate to something closer using updated weather not available when you planned the flight (things could have gotten worse as well and you'd be well advised to monitor filed and potential alternates for that reason too). Finally, you can make an unscheduled fuel stop. If I think there's any chance that fuel could become tight, I often research a few extra fuel stops for the leg so I don't end up landing where the pumps are closed for the night or the prices are sky high.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Here's the definition of "Operate"
Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in 91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).
Click to expand...

If one interprets the term "Operate" in the context of 91.167 to mean continuously meet the requirement as apposed to a planning requirement, then there is a logical inconsistency.

For the sake of illustration, assume that the flight to the airport of first intended landing takes two hours, that the flight to the alternate takes one hour and that the initial fuel required is 3 hours and 45 minutes. If one had taken off with the minimum required fuel and arrived at the airport of first intended landing, then diverted to the alternate and landed at the alternate with 45 minutes of fuel on board, they would be in violation of a literal interpretation of operate. For illustration, when the aircraft is half way to its alternate, the fuel on board would be one hour and 15 minutes remaining. From that point, it could no longer:

(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

(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top