Jaybird180
Final Approach
I'm reading an article about part 91 takeoffs below minimums and one of the comments mentioned filing a takeoff alternate. Is this possible? How would you indicate this on a flight plan?
Takeoff Alternate???
- Thread starter Jaybird180
- Start date
I don't know of a way to file a takeoff alternate for 91. I guess in the remarks, you can write KXXX as takeoff alternate. I wouldn't' want to launch anyway if I couldn't get back in
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
From the IFH: Aircraft operating under Part 91 are not required to comply with established takeoff minimums. Legally, a zero/zero departure may be made, but it is never advisable.
Nothing stops you from having a takeoff alternate however. You could list it in the remarks but ATC won't know about it, just FSS. Just plan one or two if things go wrong.
Nothing stops you from having a takeoff alternate however. You could list it in the remarks but ATC won't know about it, just FSS. Just plan one or two if things go wrong.
For a second there I thought you were going to taxi to some alternate airport before departing.
What makes you think there is any reason to file such an alternate. Even if the weather was good enough to return to the departure airport, that would not be authorized. If you are in communication with ATC after departure, you tell them what you're doing and they know. If you're not in comms, you exercise your emergency authority and do what you have to do. Even when diverting at the destination, ATC doesn't much know or care what you filed as your alternate.
What makes you think there is any reason to file such an alternate. Even if the weather was good enough to return to the departure airport, that would not be authorized. If you are in communication with ATC after departure, you tell them what you're doing and they know. If you're not in comms, you exercise your emergency authority and do what you have to do. Even when diverting at the destination, ATC doesn't much know or care what you filed as your alternate.
It's not something you file. It's something you plan to do in case of a problem.
As @flyingron points out, what would be the good of filing anyway? ATC doesn't even see the destination alternate. Alternates, whether required or not are a preflight planning task. You know, that
FAR 91.103, "Preflight Action," talks about?
As @flyingron points out, what would be the good of filing anyway? ATC doesn't even see the destination alternate. Alternates, whether required or not are a preflight planning task. You know, that
"alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed"
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
That.
And required or not, it's a good idea to have in mind before you blast off into the soup, seems most planes chit the bed nearing take off or landing, wouldn't want to take off IMC if there wasn't a place where I could get into on a approach (or VMC) within a short hop if needed.
Agreed. Think that's called Risk Management!
Larry in TN
En-Route
Takeoff alternates are required in commercial operations when the weather at the departure airport below landing minimums. The takeoff alternate's weather must meet regular alternate airport weather minimums and it must be within one-hour flying time in still air with one engine inoperative.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
As I recall, way back when, it was only for two-engine Part 121 airplanes. That was when we had more three and four-engine airplanes than two-engine airplanes. Just relying on memory.
3 or more engines has to have an alternate not more than 2 hours with 1 engine inop. 121.617
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
We are required to have a takeoff alternate in 135 when the weather at the departure airport is above takeoff minimums but below landing minimums. However, it's not required that we file it anywhere except in our heads. It's probably a good idea to tell the other pilot during the takeoff briefing or at some other time, though.
Larry in TN
En-Route
Yes, we know.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well you are quoting Part 135 & 121, and I know, you know that too. But this is POA, so carry on.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
My point was that even when a takeoff alternate is required (it's not for Part 91), you don't need to file it, as on the flight plan. Some operators may have a way to do this internally, but it is not an FAA requirement.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Understand. We used to pick a TO alternate ourselves on the 135 ops side, and then dispatch provided it (sometimes 2) under 121 ops. It would be listed on the dispatch release that we got at the gate.
Dispatch gave us a precautionary T/O alternate this past week but underfueled us. We didn't need the T/O alternate so we just called and had them remove it. We had to comply with the flap AD and we needed at least 5000lbs of gas.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yup hd that a bunch, gives us an alt but not the fuel. Sometimes not even an alt when wx called for it.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Yup
But required or not, it's silly not to plan one in LIFR.
When it comes to my personally 91 flying, I normally stick to 135mins.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Agree, just trying to get it back on track. Imagine, on POA, trying something like that, especially on a Friday night.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
And we have gone round about a similar thing before... why is an alternate required on the fight plan? General response is to ensure you planned for one (which makes no sense IMO).
So why doesn't that hold for take off alternate?
From my experience, part 135 is in the crosshairs. Part 91 can do as the please, and 121 is taken care of by dispatch.
I've been there, and 135 is often in violation.
Actually Part 135 is by far the hardest to comply with.
I won't disagree.
Just a WAG. It was singled out due to an significant accident. Just the type of reaction that gives birth to a lot of regs.
Larry in TN
En-Route
The destination alternate is required to be filed so that ATC will be able to find it in the event of a communication failure. The takeoff alternate is to ensure that you have a nearby airport above landing minimums in the event of an engine failure on departure when you can't return to the departure point. The regulation doesn't assume multiple failures; engine and comm.
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
No way--ATC has absolutely no idea what you are going to do in a comm failure. If I have to divert I'm going to the place that makes the most sense at the time- that may or may not be what I filed. As stated above the primary reason for for an filing an alternate is fuel planning--ATC could care less.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
I agree. Nothing in there about filing an alternate for ATC's benefit. When I diverted and the rare times I went missed flying for an airline I often, maybe even most of the time, went somewhere else than what dispatch filed for us. Of course I'd coordinate with dispatch but the biggest factor would be weather at that alternate, along with a few other considerations.
Really? What use does it do if they even take the effort to look it up? There's no requirement in either a lost comm or other situation to EVER got to your filed alternate. If you can't make the destination, it remains up to the pilot to decide what to do next.
An alternate perhaps gives them a place to query for SAR purposes, but frankly, if you don't show up at your destination they shot gun an inquiry to every airport in range.
Larry in TN
En-Route
From Don Brown's Say Again? column #51:
In a lost comm situation it gives ATC an idea of your initial plan. But that's just the initial plan. Plans change. From the AIM:
The Lost Comm article was a two-parter starting with #50.
tsts4
Pattern Altitude
Yeah but it's just a guess with a rapidly decreasing order of probability of being right from the moment I lose comms. I will fly IAW with lost comm procedures (i.e. AVE-F, AEM or stay In VFR WX if able) to my destination, and ATC will clear my path. But if I go missed and divert they won't have a clue unless I still have a transponder. IIRC the alternate doesn't always get passed on the strip from controller to controller any way.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Larry.... I'm soooo in your corner it's not even funny. I've argued your point tooth & nail (without your references).
That said, I've been shouted down here more than I care to think about. So, I just keep it to myself.
Just because it's not "on the strip" does not mean it's not retrievable.
I think the "shout down" (such as it is) is not that it can't be retrieved in case of failures or emergency to give folks a general idea where to look or where the pilot might be heading, but to avoid pilots thinking it must or even should be followed when there are better alternatives in real time.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
And this is where I strongly disagree. There are times where the fuel is planned to the minimum to reach the alternate. If one ventures to a destination that was originally a no-go, and that turns out bad, they may not have the fuel to get to the original alternate.
I understand in today's world with up to the minute weather this may not be as big of an issue, but when the rule was made these provisions were not available. Most airplanes they still are not available actually.
Whether it is on the strip or retrievable is IMMATERIAL. There's no requirement you ever go to your filed alternate, in comms or not.
I suspect that part of the disagreement may be a reflection of differences between GA operations and airline operations. My understanding is that airline flights are less likely to have more fuel on board than the regulations require, due to the cost of tankering.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
A lot of variables at the airlines such as weight that affects performance, cargo/passenger restrictions due to density conditions and fuel load. More so probably at the regionals. I was always playing with the load trying to get as many folks on board as possible when I flew the Brasilia and CRJ200, especially when an alternate was required. Not anywhere as bad a problem on the ATR72 and CRJ700/900 that I flew also. Majors sometimes have restrictions also, may be due to a MEL item or density condition, such as Vegas and Phoenix for example.
Last edited:
Good point. In GA we have so many more options, not just more fuel. I'm hardly going to forego that airport that has better weather just to go to a filed alternate.
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
And maximum landing weights.
We run into that problem in the 182s on a small scale. It's a BIG problem for a 747. If loaded to the gills and encountering a problem shortly after takeoff, you may have to lose 1/4 million pounds before landing. While you can dump the excess fuel (at least on older 747s), it's rude over populated areas.
We had to deal with that once when the cavity door jammed right after it was opened, after 30 minutes into an 8+ hour flight. We ended up orbiting inside R-2515, but the solution may not necessarily be to land at a nearby airport, and certainly not an alternate that might be on another continent. Our flights may start and end at the same place, but they often take us 2000 miles or more afield. One early last week overflew Toronto for a long (3+ hour) look at Orion. The last one I went on (last summer) went almost all the way to Ketchikan and spent nearly the whole flight over the Pacific.
For us in the 182s, landing overweight means an inspection. In a 747, it can mean tires blowing up, or worse.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Actually, that's what was drilled into me years ago during IR training. That was the mid 80's, so perhaps the school of thought back then was different than today.
From fuel on an airliner point... yes, they calculate everything. That said, quite often it pays to tanker.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
No.... you just don't land overweight. Yes they plan it close, but you wouldn't intentionally land overweight. Fly lower, faster, and use other techniques. Hold if it's the last resort, but do NOT intentionally land overweight.