GPS and Non Standard Minimums

[tcco94]

Two simple questions...not talking practical just want a legal interpretation...

Do you have to follow non-standard takeoff and alternate minimums (triangle T and A on plate) for part 91 operations? Can't find anything stating part 91 is exempt...Maybe I'm looking at it wrong?

Do you need WAAS to fly GPS T-routes or just RAIM?

 

[Roger Roger]

Part 91 is say if the GPS will load it go fly it.

 

[Capt. Chaos]

Part 91 is say if the GPS will load it go fly it.

Only applies up here, but the Alaska T routes require WAAS to legally fly them.

 

[Roger Roger]

Only applies up here, but the Alaska T routes require WAAS to legally fly them.

Then there's the R-Routes...

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

No legal interpretation required. Just basic IFR pilot infirmation.

See 91.169 for the applicability of alternate minimums to Part 91 ops (short answer -yes, they do).

Takeoff minimums are not a plain vanilla Part 91 regulatory requirement (they do apply for example to fractional Part 91 ops under 91.1039). IOW, Fractional Part 91, 135' and 121 have regs saying you have to abide, plain Part 91 does not; plenty of FAA reference to that, including Chapter 1 of the IPH.

AIM 5-3-4 for a discussion of Airways and other route systems and their requirements.

 

[tcco94]

No legal interpretation required. Just basic IFR pilot infirmation.

See 91.169 for the applicability of alternate minimums to Part 91 ops (short answer -yes, they do).

Takeoff minimums are not a plain vanilla Part 91 regulatory requirement (they do apply for example to fractional Part 91 ops under 91.1039). IOW, Fractional Part 91, 135' and 121 have regs saying you have to abide, plain Part 91 does not; plenty of FAA reference to that, including Chapter 1 of the IPH.

AIM 5-3-4 for a discussion of Airways and other route systems and their requirements.

Thank you!

 

[Fly_Unity]

No legal interpretation required. Just basic IFR pilot infirmation.

See 91.169 for the applicability of alternate minimums to Part 91 ops (short answer -yes, they do).

Takeoff minimums are not a plain vanilla Part 91 regulatory requirement (they do apply for example to fractional Part 91 ops under 91.1039). IOW, Fractional Part 91, 135' and 121 have regs saying you have to abide, plain Part 91 does not; plenty of FAA reference to that, including Chapter 1 of the IPH.

AIM 5-3-4 for a discussion of Airways and other route systems and their requirements.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that said you could use an (or some) airport as an alternate even if it had the "A" na on the plate, IF you had WAAS. The reason being that the "A" on the plate was due to no ground based approaches. Have you ever seen this?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that said you could use an (or some) airport as an alternate even if it had the "A" na on the plate, IF you had WAAS. The reason being that the "A" on the plate was due to no ground based approaches. Have you ever seen this?

I'm not sure of this so don't take this to the bank (or a checkride ). You might or might not be able to get confirmation somewhere.

AFAIK, there are two requirements for an airport to be available as an alternate - weather reporting and a monitored navigation facility. Where WAAS comes into play is that WAAS allows for monitoring a GPS approach on a national level - RNAV approached with WAAS are always "monitored." taking that part of the restrictions out of the equation. From a practical standpoint, following the "A" into the Chart Supplement for, say an airport with an unmonitored ILS or VOR but also an LPV approach should show the distinction.