Remembering 135 alternate requirements

Nah, they get beat in to your brain after a while and then you wish you could forget them. haha :) ... especially when things go south.
 
Honestly, I have to look at it every few weeks or it gets dumped from my head. Speaking of which....
 
Do you mean when an alternate is required or do you mean what the new "alternate minimums" are to use an airport as an alternate or do you mean "lower than standard takeoff minimums?" Have no fear, I've got your back:

The easiest way to remember if a particular trip requires an alternate is to start with the assumption that "all" trips require alternates - however sometimes the weather is good enough so that one isn't needed. There are a few questions to answer, but the most important one is:

Can I circle? (As a Mnemonic I remember the two C's "ceiling-circle")
If Yes then the minimum ceiling NOT to have an alternate 1500 above the lowest Circling MDA.
If No, then the minimum ceiling NOT to have an alternate is 1500 above the lowest published minimum or 2000 above the airport whatever is greater

So, Ceiling-Circle -> Add 1500
Ceiling-No Circle -> Add 1500 or 2000 to the airport whatever's bigger

That's how I remember it.

The next question is "what's the lowest vis I need to get in if I have to fly an approach?"
Take that number and add 2 to it. If its greater than 3 that's the minimum visibility required NOT to need an alternate, otherwise use 3.
As long as you can answer the 2 questions you'll be fine, but always start under the assumption that you'll need an alternate.

Honestly, just look at it 1000 times and you'll figure it out.
Reference 91.109, 91.169, and 135.223

Here's an example:

Consider PAJN, imagine you're flying a slant-alpha equipped airplane into J-town and you're going to get there in the middle of the night. (http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1205/01191RV8.PDF) pretend you're also not authorized to use the special approach. It's possible to circle, and let's say you're a category B airplane on the approach.

Find the category B nighttime circling minimums - add 1500' to them.
Find the Category B nighttime circling vis mins - add 2 miles to them.
You must have 4500' Ceilings and 12 miles of vis forcast to not need an alternate for juneau under the constraints we established there. That's an extreme example of course, KFAR works out to 2000' and 3.5 miles required to skip the alternate for a category C aircraft. It will vary, but you can always look the rule up if you have to.
-------
As for the minimums to add to approaches for non-standard alternate minimums, think "1,4,1" and "2,2,1/2"

1 Nav Aid One Runway - Add 400' and 1 Mile to the lowest approach
2 Different Nav Aids to Different Runways - Add 200' to the highest approach and 1/2 mile to the highest (note these may not be the same)

"1,4,1 Rule, and 2, 2 and a half"
Also, remember that there are a few caveats to this rule, for one, if you must use a circling maneuver, you have to use the 1,4,1, Rule, or you don't "have" to use the 2,2 and a half rule if you don't want to (in fact, sometimes it might be to your detriment to use that, especially if the approaches are something like an NDB and an ILS). Remember that under 135, the airport has to be useable as an alternate (check the approach plates).

Reference 135.221, Opscpec C55
Also, as a cool refference check out Austin Collins' Very Easy Guide series (http://www.proaviator.com/f/flx/aveg1.pdf)

----
Finally, I'm super hesitant to give you any rules of thumb for takeoff minimums or refer you to the AVEG as I imagine that Ryan Air might have "adequate visibility" or 6,6,&6 takeoffs, or the like. Irregardless, a good thing to think is "Published, Standard, or Landing" The AVEG goes into detail about this - there's even a flow chart. Honestly, just refer to 135.225 and Opspec C57

Its the middle of the night, and I'm waiting for someone to pick up my freight, so, undoubtably, I've managed to screw something up in this. If anyone is bored and wants to check my work, corrections and debate would be appreciated.
 
Thanks for all the help guys! That scenario helps out a lot Pat. I will read it more in depth when I wake up, but from what I read it all makes sense.
 
Some people choose to remember the 200 1/2 rule as 2-2-2. 2 different navaids to 2 different runways, you can use 200 feet. I just memorized the numbers. Its not that hard to memorize, the thing you lose by not using it is how to apply it without looking like an idiot. I have to review them every couple of months to make sure I can apply them still lol.
 
Thanks for all the help guys! The more I look at it, the more it makes sense just to understand it and memorize it.
 
ppragman said:
Do you mean when an alternate is required or do you mean what the new "alternate minimums" are to use an airport as an alternate or do you mean "lower than standard takeoff minimums?" Have no fear, I've got your back:

The easiest way to remember if a particular trip requires an alternate is to start with the assumption that "all" trips require alternates - however sometimes the weather is good enough so that one isn't needed. There are a few questions to answer, but the most important one is:

Can I circle? (As a Mnemonic I remember the two C's "ceiling-circle")
If Yes then the minimum ceiling NOT to have an alternate 1500 above the lowest Circling MDA.
If No, then the minimum ceiling NOT to have an alternate is 1500 above the lowest published minimum or 2000 above the airport whatever is greater

So, Ceiling-Circle -> Add 1500
Ceiling-No Circle -> Add 1500 or 2000 to the airport whatever's bigger

That's how I remember it.

The next question is "what's the lowest vis I need to get in if I have to fly an approach?"
Take that number and add 2 to it. If its greater than 3 that's the minimum visibility required NOT to need an alternate, otherwise use 3.
As long as you can answer the 2 questions you'll be fine, but always start under the assumption that you'll need an alternate.

Honestly, just look at it 1000 times and you'll figure it out.
Reference 91.109, 91.169, and 135.223

Here's an example:

Consider PAJN, imagine you're flying a slant-alpha equipped airplane into J-town and you're going to get there in the middle of the night. (http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1205/01191RV8.PDF) pretend you're also not authorized to use the special approach. It's possible to circle, and let's say you're a category B airplane on the approach.

Find the category B nighttime circling minimums - add 1500' to them.
Find the Category B nighttime circling vis mins - add 2 miles to them.
You must have 4500' Ceilings and 12 miles of vis forcast to not need an alternate for juneau under the constraints we established there. That's an extreme example of course, KFAR works out to 2000' and 3.5 miles required to skip the alternate for a category C aircraft. It will vary, but you can always look the rule up if you have to.
-------
As for the minimums to add to approaches for non-standard alternate minimums, think "1,4,1" and "2,2,1/2"

1 Nav Aid One Runway - Add 400' and 1 Mile to the lowest approach
2 Different Nav Aids to Different Runways - Add 200' to the highest approach and 1/2 mile to the highest (note these may not be the same)

"1,4,1 Rule, and 2, 2 and a half"
Also, remember that there are a few caveats to this rule, for one, if you must use a circling maneuver, you have to use the 1,4,1, Rule, or you don't "have" to use the 2,2 and a half rule if you don't want to (in fact, sometimes it might be to your detriment to use that, especially if the approaches are something like an NDB and an ILS). Remember that under 135, the airport has to be useable as an alternate (check the approach plates).

Reference 135.221, Opscpec C55
Also, as a cool refference check out Austin Collins' Very Easy Guide series (http://www.proaviator.com/f/flx/aveg1.pdf)

----
Finally, I'm super hesitant to give you any rules of thumb for takeoff minimums or refer you to the AVEG as I imagine that Ryan Air might have "adequate visibility" or 6,6,&6 takeoffs, or the like. Irregardless, a good thing to think is "Published, Standard, or Landing" The AVEG goes into detail about this - there's even a flow chart. Honestly, just refer to 135.225 and Opspec C57

Its the middle of the night, and I'm waiting for someone to pick up my freight, so, undoubtably, I've managed to screw something up in this. If anyone is bored and wants to check my work, corrections and debate would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Tl;DR :D
 
I think they are published in our opspecs for a reason, then i don't have to memorize them

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
 
I obviously know the ones my job depends on, flap speeds, gear speeds, max weights, but if you asked me for Vx/Vmc in the metro a couple weeks after the check ride, I couldn't tell ya.
 
I've flown for 5 different companies now, and I'm always amazed how many people there are out there in training departments that put massive emphasis on this memory stuff. NWA spent a lot of money on researching how people can best use information in an emergency, and found that about 9/10 times people had trouble using memory items of any sort. So they went with the "Quick Reference Card" concept because it improves safety. Many places have figured out that pilots also have trouble remembering limitations, and have lessened the amount of memorization required, especially if placarded. Great example is the blue line in the metro, why on earth would it be of any value whatsoever to know what that actual number is? You're going to fly the line.

If we talk about systems knowledge, I think it's great for people to go through an initial systems class, and perhaps a review in recurrent. But for many newer, more automated airplanes, why is there so much emphasis placed upon memory? Boeing has made it very clear that they want pilots to use the QRH if there is a problem and not rely on systems knowledge. Many airlines feel the need to make it more complicated. And while it may be nice to have a better idea of what's happening, I've found that the opposite can be a problem as well. I've had more than one scenario where another pilot thought they knew better than the QRH and I had to disagree and say let's just run the checklist. Sure enough, what they thought was incorrect. Relying on systems knowledge is very important for older airplanes like 727s and metroliners, but for newer aircraft, why still the emphasis on memory?

I'm curious to hear some thoughts on this. I feel like I've had the fortune of being employed with some of the most memorization happy airlines out there, and I tend to get a bit jaded about it. I am personally one that can't remember the stuff very well and have to re-learn it every time for recurrent. Are we wasting time if we have to re-learn it for an oral, or is it good review?
 
I actually agree with jhugz for once (and Dan208B). If I had any doubt as to whether or not I had a legal alternate when I flew 135, I'd look it up. As far as limitations, I honestly couldn't list off the flap speed differences between the 757-200, 767-200, and 767-300. They're all different, and I'm current on each. Before I call for flaps, I simply look at the placard. We're actually required to memorize very little in the way of limitations; most speeds, temperatures, engine speed limits, etc. are placarded. Some of the more important limitations (turbulent air penetration speed, for example) are memorized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top