FAR 135.225 (e)

J

jeanguypataterub

Well-Known Member
I have a question about FAR 135.225 (e). It says that if you don't have 100 hours PIC on type that your minimums are raised by 100 feet and 1/2 a mile. Then it says "but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for that airport when used as an alternate airport". Does this mean that if you go to your alternate you use the published minimums even when you don't have 100 hours PIC?

Thanks

JGPR
 
The alternate has 200-1/2 or 400-1 added to the minimums already, right?
 
Nark said:
You're alternate, isn't the alternate, when your proceeding to the Alternate...
Click to expand...
That was kind of my question. Once you head to an alternate and it becomes the destination, aren't you in the 135 world just subject to its published minimums, not it's minimums for the the purpose of being listed as an alternate?

As far as I can tell, the <100 hour PIC is subject to the lesser of :
(1) the approach minimums plus 100 and 1/2; and
(2) the alternate minimums for that approach.

Seems to me (2) is going to be pretty rare.
 
Exactly.

gne in prog said:
That only matters for filing. If a high min pic has to go to the alternate, they can fly the published mins.
Click to expand...

and planning.

If it’s a legal alternate when you leave, that has built-in a fudge factor for the possibiloty of the weather deteriorating to published mins IF you actually have to go there.
 
I believe what it’s saying is that for planning purposes you don’t have to add high captain minimums to your alternate PLANNING minimums, though it would apply to every approach you actually fly. That being said, if the weather really goes to the doghouse and you’re in a minimum fuel situation, emergency authority can apply.
 
We have an OpsSpec that high mins PIC's can shot CAT I ILS at normal mins, but use CAT II procedures.
 
Roger Roger said:
That is not true. They still need to fly the published mins plus the DA and vis additives.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the right answer according to the Gleim course I am doing. I still don't understand why though. The way I read it "but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for that airport when used as an alternate airport" means that if you are going to your alternate you use published minimums. Which would make sense because if you're going to your alternate you are getting low on options.
 
jeanguypataterub said:
This seems to be the right answer according to the Gleim course I am doing. I still don't understand why though. The way I read it "but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for that airport when used as an alternate airport" means that if you are going to your alternate you use published minimums. Which would make sense because if you're going to your alternate you are getting low on options.
Click to expand...
Destination airport has an ILS with 200’ 1/2 mile. For purposes of flight planning, legality to start the approach, and DA on the approach you need to use 300’ and 1 mile.

Now You’ve gone missed and at your alternate. You still have to tack on 100’ to any DA/MDA and 1/2 mile to any minimum visibility, UNLESS that puts the DA/MDA or visibility above minima (published or derived as applicable) for using that airport as an alternate. So let’s say your alternate has 2 ILSs to 200 and 1/2 and lets you use alternate mins of 400/1 (using the 2 nav rule). If you shoot one of the ILSs you need 1 SM to start the approach and your DA is 300’. However lets say for some reason you’re shooting an RNAV approach with 500’ and 1-1/2 SM mins. Because tacking on 100 and 1/2 to those mins takes you above the 400 and 1 required to file the alternate, you can use the published mins on that approach. Clear as mud?
 
jeanguypataterub said:
Roger Roger said:
That is not true. They still need to fly the published mins plus the DA and vis additives.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the right answer according to the Gleim course I am doing. I still don't understand why though. The way I read it "but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for that airport when used as an alternate airport" means that if you are going to your alternate you use published minimums. Which would make sense because if you're going to your alternate you are getting low on options.
Click to expand...

Your alternate, if you planned it correctly and the weather held as forecast, will have weather better than even the high captain minimums for the approach you’re flying. If it doesn’t, go somewhere else if the option is still available, and if it isn’t, you’re put in a minimum fuel situation and emergency authority applies.

But don’t use emergency authority as a way to get around bad planning.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Your alternate, if you planned it correctly and the weather held as forecast, will have weather better than even the high captain minimums for the approach you’re flying. If it doesn’t, go somewhere else if the option is still available, and if it isn’t, you’re put in a minimum fuel situation and emergency authority applies.

But don’t use emergency authority as a way to get around bad planning.
Click to expand...
If you had really marginal wx and an alternate with multiple ILSs (so you can get 400 and 1 for your alternate), it could happen pretty easy where you’re forecast to have a mile at your alternate, you get there and it’s down to 3/4 and you can’t even legally try the approach. But wait, I just realized you’d need to tack the 100 and 1/2 onto your approach mins for purpose of deriving your alternate, so the lowest alternate you’d get even with multiple ILSs would be 500 and 1-1/2.
 
jeanguypataterub said:
This seems to be the right answer according to the Gleim course I am doing. I still don't understand why though. The way I read it "but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for that airport when used as an alternate airport" means that if you are going to your alternate you use published minimums. Which would make sense because if you're going to your alternate you are getting low on options.
Click to expand...

Let's parse 135.225(e). First, let's take out the part about alternate airports:

The MDA or DA/DH and visibility landing minimums prescribed in Part 97 of this chapter or in the operator's operations specifications are increased by 100 feet and 1/2 mile respectively ... for each pilot in command of a turbine powered airplane who has not served at least 100 hours as pilot in command in that type of airplane.​

That's it. It is set of, for want of a better term, increased mandatory personal minimums for PICs with less than 100 PIC time-in-type. Why? Probably stats showing pilots with low time in type have a higher accident rate. Whatever. That's the rule and, the way it's written, it does not read as a planing rule.

but not to exceed the ceiling and visibility minimums for that airport when used as an alternate airport​

The one and only thing this part does is act as a limit on the 100-and-a-half. I wouldn't even be surprised to find there is only one airport - or no airport - it applies to. All it says is, if the destination has alternate minimums lower than published minimums + 100+1/2, you use the alternate minimums not the 100+1/2. I think it's just a recognition that alternate minimums are already a buffer over published minimums.

The rules and guidance which tell us that alternate minimums are a planning requirement, to be tossed aside if we actually go there have nothing whatsoever to do with this.
 
Got one:
Let's say you are Category C and can't identify VAYRU. Your published minimums are 800-2¼
Category C Alternate Minimums for this approach are 800-2¼ (I checked). Yep the alternate and published minimums are the same.

135.225(e) says the low-time PIC's minimums for the approach are the better of:
  • 900-2-3/4 (published minimums plus 100+1/2) and
  • 800-2¼ the alternate minimums
Basically, at this airport, you'd fly the published minimums.
06366VA.svg
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Got one:
Let's say you are Category C and can't identify VAYRU. Your published minimums are 800-2¼
Category C Alternate Minimums for this approach are 800-2¼ (I checked). Yep the alternate and published minimums are the same.

135.225(e) says the low-time PIC's minimums for the approach are the better of:
  • 900-2-3/4 (published minimums plus 100+1/2) and
  • 800-2¼ the alternate minimums
Basically, at this airport, you'd fly the published minimums.
06366VA.svg
Click to expand...

Except the language in the ops spec requires you to use derived planning minimums, likely for this exact reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top