Destination airport weather minimums

[z987k]

Under what regulation? The only thing you have to watch for is you don't need to file to a GA reliever airport in the middle of the push and expect to switch to ATL or JFK en route and not get a phone call. But that's about flow control, not just that you changed destination.

135.219 - No person may take off an aircraft under IFR or begin an IFR or over-the-top operation unless the latest weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that weather conditions at the estimated time of arrival at the next airport of intended landing will be at or above authorized IFR landing minimums.

The argument was that you never intended to land at the airport you filed to.
I don't agree with that interpretation, but you hear lots of things from POIs and FSDOs.

 

[jeflies]

You intend to land there if your preferred airport isn't above mins. I don't see a problem at all with doing that way.


Sent from my iPhone

 

[ctab5060X]

EDIT: What about 3585?

Not in this case. 3585 requires the main body to be at or above authorized landing minumums at the time of arrival with a conditional statement (TEMPO, PROB, BECMG) showing that the weather could be below authorized landing minumums (up to 1/2 authorized landing minimums) at the time of arrival.

I'm sure you know it gets a lot more technical that just that brief explanation.

 

[msmspilot]

135.219 - No person may take off an aircraft under IFR or begin an IFR or over-the-top operation unless the latest weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate that weather conditions at the estimated time of arrival at the next airport of intended landing will be at or above authorized IFR landing minimums.

The argument was that you never intended to land at the airport you filed to.
I don't agree with that interpretation, but you hear lots of things from POIs and FSDOs.

I always intend to land at the airport I file to. Sometimes, an option becomes available during flight that has an operational advantage. I can't help that.

I know some FSDOs say you can't do that, but I don't know of an instance of them actually filing a violation for it.

 

[cstewart6]

Its SOP for me to file to a nearby airport or one thats on the way if the destination is below mins. Not because im trying to fool anyone, but because i have time critical work and i want to be closer when the fog finally lifts. If it dissipates on my way there thats even better.

 

[msmspilot]

Its SOP for me to file to a nearby airport or one thats on the way if the destination is below mins. Not because im trying to fool anyone, but because i have time critical work and i want to be closer when the fog finally lifts. If it dissipates on my way there thats even better.

Exactly.

 

[z987k]

Exactly.

I've done the same thing for months on end. I've just been hearing some crazy crap come out of people's mouths lately.

 

[Hammertime]

I know 121 is generally different, but a 121 operator wouldn't be able to launch with that forecast.

Now, everything a 121 operator does is opspec driven, and different operators have different opspec. That said, the 121 operator I work for would be perfectly legal to launch in those conditions. Per our operating manual*, TEMPO is controlling. Now, looking at the report (METAR), I might have a conversation with dispatch as to the wisdom of launching vs the possibility of diverting.

EDIT: What about 3585?

Good thought, however Exemption 3585 only allows relief from the conditional remarks (TEMPO and BECMG). The main body must be above destination mins. In this case the opposite is true.

*Mine's in my car, which is sitting in the driveway in a snowstorm. When I get the gumption to go get it, I'll see if that line is opspec driven or 121.