IFR to airport without approach - Alternate

tonycondon

tonycondon

Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
15,465
Location
Wichita, KS
Display Name
Display name:
Tony
For some reason, I've always thought that if you file a flight plan to an airport without an approach, you have to file an alternate, regardless of the weather. I'm sending a CFII to his checkride this weekend and while working on prep for his oral the subject came up and after both of us read through the reg 50 times we decided I must be wrong. Right?

I do understand the reg that if you file an airport without an approach as your alternate, then the weather must be good enough to descend from MEA/OROCA and land visually.
 
as i understand it, you can file w/o an alternate to an airport w/o an approach assuming the weather will be good enough to descend below MEA.


obviously, thats what you've come up with as well, so I don't have any other input.
 
actually (from a purely legal standpoint) I dont even think the weather has to be above MEA, just meeting the 1-2-3 rule of having to file an alternate.
 
Okay, I think we're running into the "implicit boolean logic" of the FARs.

Let's look at this, it's 91.169:
(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person filing an IFR flight plan must include in it the following information:
(1) Information required under §91.153 (a) of this part;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an alternate airport.
​
Okay, so you always needs to file an alternate, except in the cases where the next paragraph says it's okay not to. So let's look at the next paragraph, and see when it tells us that it's okay to not file an alternate:
(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:
​
There's an implicit AND between (1) and (2). In order for our "exception to the rule of always filing alternate" to be in effect, both (1) and (2) both have to be true at the same time. We already know about (2), that's the standard "123 rule" for the weather being good enough. But what does (1) say? It says "your destination airport has to have an IAP".

So in order for our "exception" to apply, in order for us to be able to get out of the rule of always having to file an alternate, we need BOTH of these to to be true:

  • our destination airport has an IAP, AND
  • the weather is forecast to be "good enough", per the "123 rule"
If either of these does not apply, then our exception does not apply, and we're thus forced to file an alternate. In other words, if our destination airport does not have an IAP, then we always have to file an alternate.

The bit about "descending from the MEA" comes in the following paragraph, where we're trying to determine what airports make suitable alternates. It turns out that it's possible to use an airport without an IAP as an alternate, if the forecast is good enough.
-harry
 
tonycondon said:
For some reason, I've always thought that if you file a flight plan to an airport without an approach, you have to file an alternate, regardless of the weather. I'm sending a CFII to his checkride this weekend and while working on prep for his oral the subject came up and after both of us read through the reg 50 times we decided I must be wrong. Right?
Click to expand...
I think you were right the first time. Look at this...

§ 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.

top (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.
Click to expand...
You need an alternate according to (a) unless (b) applies.
 
harry - thats it. i thought I was right but couldn't make the logic work at the time. what can i say it was towards the end of a 2 or 3 hr session with the FARs. enough to turn anyones brain to mush. Thanks!
 
TMetzinger said:
So... what if you file IFR to something other than an airport?
Click to expand...

FAR 1.1

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

So where else would you file an IFR flight plan for in an airplane?
 
Rotor&Wing said:
FAR 1.1

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

So where else would you file an IFR flight plan for in an airplane?
Click to expand...

Well if you're Navy you might just file for the middle of the ocean somewheres...:D
 
mantakos said:
(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:
​
There's an implicit AND between (1) and (2).
Click to expand...

It's an explicit "and" in my copy.
 
mantakos said:
(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:
​
There's an implicit AND between (1) and (2).
Click to expand...
Funny. It looks like a =real= AND to me
 
Geez, Tony.. What ELSE have you gotten wrong in the past!? I wonder if I should write a letter to the FAA and have them rescind my IR.

Naaaah.. Maybe not..

:D
 
Rotor&Wing said:
FAR 1.1

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

So where else would you file an IFR flight plan for in an airplane?
Click to expand...


To an open field that is NOT intended for airplanes to land at, but they can. Hell in Montana you can still land on public roads, IINM.
 
CJones said:
Geez, Tony.. What ELSE have you gotten wrong in the past!? I wonder if I should write a letter to the FAA and have them rescind my IR.

Naaaah.. Maybe not..

:D
Click to expand...

bu but but I had it RIGHT! :D
 
Rotor&Wing said:
FAR 1.1

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

So where else would you file an IFR flight plan for in an airplane?
Click to expand...

To a navaid where I expect to continue VFR, or where I'm going to do something else, like flight testing.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
FAR 1.1

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.

So where else would you file an IFR flight plan for in an airplane?
Click to expand...

an IAP for the target airport

a VOR near the destination then VFR your way in.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Why not just cancel your IFR when arriving into VFR conditions if that's the case?
Click to expand...

Because if I file IFR to an AIRPORT without an approach in the middle of nowhere, I have to file an alternate (even if the forecast is CAVU) - and I may not have enough fuel to legally file that.

If I file to a NAVAID near the airport, the alternate isn't required.

It's a low probability example, but valid nonetheless.
 
TMetzinger said:
Because if I file IFR to an AIRPORT without an approach in the middle of nowhere, I have to file an alternate (even if the forecast is CAVU) - and I may not have enough fuel to legally file that.

If I file to a NAVAID near the airport, the alternate isn't required.

It's a low probability example, but valid nonetheless.
Click to expand...

It's a pointless exercise to be exact. :rolleyes:
 
TMetzinger said:
Because if I file IFR to an AIRPORT without an approach in the middle of nowhere, I have to file an alternate (even if the forecast is CAVU) - and I may not have enough fuel to legally file that.

If I file to a NAVAID near the airport, the alternate isn't required.
Click to expand...

Why not? Filing to a NAVAID near an airport is not the exception in FAR 91.169(b).
 
If I file to a NAVAID near the airport, the alternate isn't required.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't want to be the one explaining this logic to a judge, it seems to fail the "walk like a duck" test.

Of course, a judge might also point out that if you don't have an "airport of first intended landing", then you seem to not be eligible for the "exception", and thus must revert back to always filing an alternate. This seems fairly logical, as the intent of all of this assumes that you're going somewhere where you can land before you run out of gas. A judge might even conclude that your airport of first intended landing doesn't necessarily have to even be on your flight plan, as it might be the place where you intend to land after reverting to VFR.
-harry
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Why not? Filing to a NAVAID near an airport is not the exception in FAR 91.169(b).
Click to expand...

RATS. Not only are you correct... But that DOES render it pointless, and now I have to apologize to R&W.

Dear R&W, you were half-right. One does not avoid the requirement for an alternate airport by filing to a navaid. However, that does not negate the ability nor the usefulness (composite plan, for instance) to file IFR to a navaid instead of an airport.


Gag, cough, <CAW!> choke... I hate the taste of crow.
 
mantakos said:
I wouldn't want to be the one explaining this logic to a judge, it seems to fail the "walk like a duck" test.

Of course, a judge might also point out that if you don't have an "airport of first intended landing", then you seem to not be eligible for the "exception", and thus must revert back to always filing an alternate. This seems fairly logical, as the intent of all of this assumes that you're going somewhere where you can land before you run out of gas. A judge might even conclude that your airport of first intended landing doesn't necessarily have to even be on your flight plan, as it might be the place where you intend to land after reverting to VFR.
Click to expand...

I believe you mean the "point of first intended landing".
 
OOOH another reason to file to a NAVAID/FIX and not an airport... because you're going to land at a private place not in the system - i.e. a sandbar, or a lake (for a seaplane), or something else that would not be recognized by ATC.

That's a lot less pointless.
 
I believe you mean the "point of first intended landing".
Click to expand...
I thought we demonstrated that if a point is somewhere you intend to land, that pretty much makes it an airport?

But the FAR does say "the first airport of intended landing".
-harry
 
TMetzinger said:
OOOH another reason to file to a NAVAID/FIX and not an airport... because you're going to land at a private place not in the system - i.e. a sandbar, or a lake (for a seaplane), or something else that would not be recognized by ATC.

That's a lot less pointless.
Click to expand...

See post 15
 
TMetzinger said:
OOOH another reason to file to a NAVAID/FIX and not an airport... because you're going to land at a private place not in the system - i.e. a sandbar, or a lake (for a seaplane), or something else that would not be recognized by ATC.
That's a lot less pointless.
Click to expand...

See FAR 1.1

FAR 1.1

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
See FAR 1.1

FAR 1.1

Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any.
Click to expand...

Again...roads in rural Montana are intended for use by cars, but *can* be used by planes. Also, in Michigan, any state owned land (except roads) can be used to land an aircraft, although the intended use is not as such.
 
OK, under FAR 1.1, my lake in NH is an airport (since I can get a seaplane in or out of it)... so, what do I put in the flight plan block for destination, where ATC expects an AIRPORT ID, a FIX, or a NAVAID?

Since ATC doesn't know anything about my lake, I can't file to it. Now I CAN file to a nearby NDB, and put KLCI as my alternate. works great. I could also possibly file to a lat.lon or PDB waypoint, but again, none of those are categorized as airports by ATC systems.
 
mantakos said:
But the FAR does say "the first airport of intended landing".
Click to expand...

The information requirement for filing is in all cases "the point of first intended landing", "the first airport of intended landing" refers to the alternate, if required.
 
roncachamp said:
The information requirement for filing is in all cases "the point of first intended landing", "the first airport of intended landing" refers to the alternate, if required.
Click to expand...

So are you saying one CANNOT file to a fix? Or that one can only file to a fix if the intent is to land on that corresponding piece of water or earth?
 
mantakos said:
Okay, so you always needs to file an alternate, except in the cases where the next paragraph says it's okay not to. So let's look at the next paragraph, and see when it tells us that it's okay to not file an alternate:
(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:
​
There's an implicit AND between (1) and (2).
Click to expand...
Actually, the "and" is explicit (and highlighted above). No SIAP? Alternate required. End of story, no matter how good the weather at your destination.
 
Clark1961 said:
Well if you're Navy you might just file for the middle of the ocean somewheres...:D
Click to expand...
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').
 
TMetzinger said:
OK, under FAR 1.1, my lake in NH is an airport (since I can get a seaplane in or out of it)... so, what do I put in the flight plan block for destination, where ATC expects an AIRPORT ID, a FIX, or a NAVAID?
Click to expand...

Coordinates or distance and bearing from a NAVAID will work fine; such as 4347/7109 or ENE331032.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top