Alternate NA

F

FlynRyan

Well-Known Member
I have been reading the IFH, IPH, and the FAR/AIM and they all say that when the approach plate has Alternate NA on NOS charts or just NA on the jepps that you cannot legally file that as your alternate. However I recall an examiner stating that if the weather is forecasted to be VFR, and you can descend from the MEA and land all under VFR at your time of arrival then it was ok to file it as your alternate. Is that true? If so can you provide a reference? It just doesn't seem right to me.

Thanks all.
 
FlynRyan said:
I have been reading the IFH, IPH, and the FAR/AIM and they all say that when the approach plate has Alternate NA on NOS charts or just NA on the jepps that you cannot legally file that as your alternate. However I recall an examiner stating that if the weather is forecasted to be VFR, and you can descend from the MEA and land all under VFR at your time of arrival then it was ok to file it as your alternate. that true? If so can you provide a reference? It just doesn't seem right to me.

Thanks all.
Click to expand...

Thats true (for us), +/- 1 hour from ETA for an airport with no published IAP. Same applies for destination.....can file IFR to a point where a VFR descent and landing can be made.

The A-NA denotes the NAVAIDS are unmonitored or there is no WX reporting capability. Additionally, if GPS is the only NAVAID, or all available IAPs require RADAR, then you'll also see an A-NA.
 
MikeD said:
Thats true (for us)
Click to expand...
for everybody as far as I know, and that GPS only stipulation does not apply to WAAS approaches flown by WAAS equipped aircraft

edit: ok now that I said that my brain started thinking and now I cant find the reference. Am I crazy? I swear I read that right out of the FAR, anybody know what I am talking about?
 
bdhill1979 said:
for everybody as far as I know, and that GPS only stipulation does not apply to WAAS approaches flown by WAAS equipped aircraft

edit: ok now that I said that my brain started thinking and now I cant find the reference. Am I crazy? I swear I read that right out of the FAR, anybody know what I am talking about?
Click to expand...

Thats what I figured, but since I found the reference in our pubs, I played it safe.

For your edit, AIM 1-1-20(7)(a) states, in part, that "The FAA has begun removing the A-NA symbol from select RNAV (GPS) and GPS approach procedures so they may be used by approach approved WAAS receivers at alternate airports. Some approach receivers will still require the A-NA for other reasons, such as no weather reporting, so it cannot be removed from all procedures. Since every procedure must be individually evaluated, removal of the A-NA from RNAV (GPS) and GPS procedures will take some time."
 
MikeD said:
Thats what I figured, but since I found the reference in our pubs, I played it safe.

For your edit, AIM 1-1-20(7)(a) states, in part, that "The FAA has begun removing the A-NA symbol from select RNAV (GPS) and GPS approach procedures so they may be used by approach approved WAAS receivers at alternate airports. Some approach receivers will still require the A-NA for other reasons, such as no weather reporting, so it cannot be removed from all procedures. Since every procedure must be individually evaluated, removal of the A-NA from RNAV (GPS) and GPS procedures will take some time."
Click to expand...
you beat me, yeah it was AIM 1-1-20, but for some reason I could swear in previous years there was actually a line in part 91 flat out saying the alternate NA did not apply to WAAS, but I throw my old ones away, so maybe I am just crazy.
 
bdhill1979 said:
you beat me, yeah it was AIM 1-1-20, but for some reason I could swear in previous years there was actually a line in part 91 flat out saying the alternate NA did not apply to WAAS, but I throw my old ones away, so maybe I am just crazy.
Click to expand...

Actually, was just timing......am currently studying WAAS/LAAS stuff for an upcoming checkride, so had just been reviewing those pages earlier today.
 
MikeD said:
Actually, was just timing......am currently studying WAAS/LAAS stuff for an upcoming checkride.
Click to expand...
well about 20 times a day I get to say:

"The WRS receives the GPS signal, sends it to the Master Station which computes the three associated errors; time, ephemeris, and ionospheric, then transmits the correction info to the GUS, then they send that to the 2 GEOs, and they transmit that to your reciever, giving you a corrected solution"

I can do it with my eyes closed, and my hands tied behind my back; impressive I know:insane:
 
So what you are saying is if I see A-NA or NA on the Jepp alt mins, I can still legally file (part 91) that as my alternate on my flight plan if the wx is going to be VFR from the MEA down? Is there a reference that im missing on this?
 
FlynRyan said:
So what you are saying is if I see A-NA or NA on the Jepp alt mins, I can still legally file (part 91) that as my alternate on my flight plan if the wx is going to be VFR from the MEA down? Is there a reference that im missing on this?
Click to expand...

Under 14 CFR 91.169(c)(2), for you and me.

So for me to determine if I need an alternate under Part 91; applying the 1124 rule, if the destination WX at ETA to ETA + 1 is less than 1000/2 or 400 above the lowest approach min, then I need an alternate.

At the alternate, at ETA, if the field is at least 200/1, then I need an IAP or airport that isn't A-NA. However, if the ceiling/viz allows a VFR descent to landing with no IAP, then I can file that field as an alternate if there is an A-NA, since with a VFR descent:

- IAP-wise, I'm not using the IAP that is A-NA for anything.
- Airport-wise, If the NAVAID is unmonitored, it shouldn't matter.
- If the only approach (or all) is GPS, then the first bullet statement applies.
- If the only appraoch (or all) requires RADAR, then the first bullet again applies.
 
Negative. FAR 91.169(c)(2):
"If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter and no special instrument approach procedure has been issued by the Adminstrator to the opertator, for the alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent from MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR."
In other words, the descent from VFR rule for your alternate may only be used if there are no IAPs. If there are IAPs for the airport, you can not use this rule. So if an airport is A N/A you can not use it for your alternate, even if it is VFR.
 
Good to know that bullet, and agree with the interpertation. I do wonder though the reasoning behind it, since VFR is VFR whether there are existing IAPs or not. I'd be curious the logic behind it.
 
Just wanted to toss this out here as it wasn't mentioned that I saw, just because you can't file it as your alternate doesn't mean you can't use it as an alternate. The filed alternate is primarily a backup for lost comms and you are not required to fly there as your only alternate option should you have to fly to an alternate. Point is, you can fly where ever you please regardless of what alternate you actually file.


Mike: It is the FAA why the heck are you looking for logic? :confused:
 
shdw said:
Just wanted to toss this out here as it wasn't mentioned that I saw, just because you can't file it as your alternate doesn't mean you can't use it as an alternate. The filed alternate is primarily a backup for lost comms and you are not required to fly there as your only alternate option should you have to fly to an alternate. Point is, you can fly where ever you please regardless of what alternate you actually file.


Mike: It is the FAA why the heck are you looking for logic? :confused:
Click to expand...

Filing and flying being two different creatures. Just make sure you have the fuel for the filed one. If the VFR airport is closer to the primary, once in VMC, cancel IFR. If IFR and lost coms, if enroute to the file alternate, you pop into VMC and there is the VFR airport -- land.

91.185(b) VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable.

Have a plan and CYA.

91.3(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
 
Deadstick: Doesn't even need to be an emergency, but yes you still need to file within parameters and have fuel to meet the regs for that alternate you filed. Regardless of what you filed though, the alternate you choose to fly to can be any one you wish, emergency or not. Furthermore, the one you decide to fly to can be below alternate minimums and/or have "NA" listed and you may still fly to it, just can't file it. Interesting little loop hole in the regulations if you will.
 
shdw said:
Deadstick: Doesn't even need to be an emergency, but yes you still need to file within parameters and have fuel to meet the regs for that alternate you filed. Regardless of what you filed though, the alternate you choose to fly to can be any one you wish, emergency or not. Furthermore, the one you decide to fly to can be below alternate minimums and/or have "NA" listed and you may still fly to it, just can't file it. Interesting little loop hole in the regulations if you will.
Click to expand...

The 91.3 reference was more for the lost comms scenario.
 
I teach all my students that their filed flight plan is nothing more than a Lost Comms procedure.

If you have comms you can request and get pretty much anything that is legal, traffic complies, and fuel is sufficient.
 
You can (and I have), gone to an alternate other than that listed on the flight plan. Good example- flight to KPHF. Closest legal alternate was KBWI. After going missed at KPHF checked weather at KORF. 200-1/2. We had fuel to shoot approach there, go to KBWI and still have 1 hour gas. Got inot KORF. Everyone was happy.
 
So the majority opinion is that when filing you are not allowed to file an airport as an alternate if it says A-NA, regardless of the weather.

Thanks everyone for responding.
 
shdw said:
The filed alternate is primarily a backup for lost comms and you are not required to fly there as your only alternate option should you have to fly to an alternate.
Click to expand...

Yep. I teach my students that filed alternate = place you would go if you lost comms, could not get in at filed destination and cannot maintain VFR.
 
Thats the beauty. Always new things to learn or re-learn, no matter how little logic they contain! :D The file/fly think I've always kind of looked at as one. I've field destination/alternates where there's no IAP or even airway, end point just being a VORTAC radial/bearing at a particular altitude and cancel before. Was IMC on the way, but was able to descend VMC due to forecast at the destination. To me, the same as having an IAP that's A-NA, but every other parameter is the same as if there were no IAP, due to the reasons I listed. Joking aside on the logic, I do wonder what the actual logic is behind the difference. As I said, VFR descent from MEA is VFR descent from MEA, no matter how you slice it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top