If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in
oups.com: Actually, I've filed similar plans with Lansing, and they wouldn't let me. They insisted that I file at least 2 plans, one departing Midland and the other departing Lansing. I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK). Not all FSS specialists know everything they need to know. -- Regards, Stan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK). They have no basis to refuse to take it. The alternate airport doesn't even get processed into the system beyond the originating FSS. I know of an operator who operates a Gulfstream 5 on a regular basis from LAX to HNL. During the winter when the weather is really churning in the islands with a tropical convergence and all that brings, he files LAX as his alternate. Experience has shown that operator that since they can carry the fuel it is sometimes better to turn around should things be nastier than forecast when they arrive in the area over there. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
dlevy wrote:
I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an alternate. Why not? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
Actually, I've filed similar plans with Lansing, and they wouldn't let me. They insisted that I file at least 2 plans, one departing Midland and the other departing Lansing. Technically, they should let you do that, but I'm sure there's some operational reason why it's easier on ATC to have two distinct flight plans, so I'm willing to go with the flow on this. The pilot and ATC need to act as a team for things to work efficiently. If one team member says, "please just do it my way" and it's no big deal to comply, there's no reason to get bent out of shape over it. I've also tried to file flight plans with the alternate the same as the departure, and they wouldn't take it. I didn't argue, and just gave another nearby alternate (e.g. DET instead of PTK). This one I just don't understand. What alternate you file has absolutely no impact for ATC. It's a regulatory obligation that the pilot has to comply with to be legal. There's no reason at all that FSS or ATC should give a rats ass what your alternate is, and for an FSS guy to refuse to accept your stated alternate is absurd. I'd have told the guy to just enter the flight plan the way I read it to him. That's just one more reason I prefer DUAT to FSS. The DUAT software may not be the most user friendly in the world, but at least each time I log in, it doesn't invent some new stupid rule that doesn't really exist. As long as the flight plan I give it is syntactically and semantically correct, it accepts whatever bizarre route I felt like inventing without giving me any 'tude. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Because I would use the qualification as an alternate as a reasonable way to
get back on the ground. "Ron Natalie" wrote in message ... dlevy wrote: I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an alternate. Why not? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:39:22 -0600, "dlevy" wrote:
Because I would use the qualification as an alternate as a reasonable way to get back on the ground. The qualifications for an alternate have nothing to do with a reasonable way to get back on the ground, except by coincidence. Alternates are used for computing legal fuel requirements. What you do to get back on the ground will depend on circumstances at the time. There's a huge difference between "alternate" and "alternative". "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... dlevy wrote: I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an alternate. Why not? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun? In radar environments,
it's probably not as big of a deal. But when not in radar, if you miss at your destination, ATC has a pretty good idea where you're headed next if you listed an alternate. Or at least where you said you would head if things didn't work out at the destination. wrote in message ... On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:39:22 -0600, "dlevy" wrote: Because I would use the qualification as an alternate as a reasonable way to get back on the ground. The qualifications for an alternate have nothing to do with a reasonable way to get back on the ground, except by coincidence. Alternates are used for computing legal fuel requirements. What you do to get back on the ground will depend on circumstances at the time. There's a huge difference between "alternate" and "alternative". "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... dlevy wrote: I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an alternate. Why not? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:39:51 GMT, "Steven Barnes"
wrote: Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun? In radar environments, it's probably not as big of a deal. But when not in radar, if you miss at your destination, ATC has a pretty good idea where you're headed next if you listed an alternate. Or at least where you said you would head if things didn't work out at the destination. One of aviation's biggest myths. wrote in message .. . On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:39:22 -0600, "dlevy" wrote: Because I would use the qualification as an alternate as a reasonable way to get back on the ground. The qualifications for an alternate have nothing to do with a reasonable way to get back on the ground, except by coincidence. Alternates are used for computing legal fuel requirements. What you do to get back on the ground will depend on circumstances at the time. There's a huge difference between "alternate" and "alternative". "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... dlevy wrote: I should have mentioned I wouldn't depart if it didn't qualify as an alternate. Why not? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Barnes wrote:
Aren't alternates also used by ATC for lost comm fun? In radar environments, it's probably not as big of a deal. But when not in radar, if you miss at your destination, ATC has a pretty good idea where you're headed next if you listed an alternate. Or at least where you said you would head if things didn't work out at the destination. Nope, ATC doesn't even know what you filed as an alternate. It's not on the flight progress strip. DGB |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
If your goal is to get someplace, turning around and going back home
may not be very useful, but it's certainly legal. It may be very useful. If you have a "there or nowhere" destination - meaning if you can't get in there, you might as well never have left home - and your home is a valid alternate, it makes no sense not to use it. Whenever I make a business trip from Houston to Austin when the weather is iffy in Austin but not in Houston, I file my alternate back in Houston. If I can't get in at Austin, it does me no good to get in somewhere 50 miles away with no arrangements for ground transport. I'm going to miss my meeting anyway, so I might as well turn around and go home. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Notes on NACO Obstacle Departure Procedures | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | July 15th 04 10:20 PM |
Interesting Departure Procedu MRB Trixy Two | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | February 18th 04 11:42 PM |
Alternate Intersection Name in Brackets? | Marco Leon | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | January 22nd 04 04:55 AM |
Requirement to fly departure procedures | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 77 | October 15th 03 06:39 PM |
Alternate requirements | Anthony Chambers | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | September 17th 03 09:45 PM |