Alternate airports

Any airport does not qualify. Most of those airports have "A-NA" on
the
chart, which stands for "Alternate - Not Authorized".

Actually, that's not quite right. The A-NA refers to the approach, not
the airport. It is quite common to have some approaches to a given
airport marked A-NA, and others not so marked. In that case, the
'best' approach among those not marked A-NA is used to determine
alternate minima for that airport. If all approaches are marked A-NA,
then the only remaining approach is a visual. The alternate minima for
a visual are weather sufficient for descent from MEA to a landing under
basic VFR. Those minima are always authorized, so any airport is an
authorized alternate - the only question is what the alternate minima
will be. There are airports where the alternate minima require 10,000'
ceilings (mountain MEA's and valley airports will do that) but they are
still authorized.

I agree with you that there are not any airports within a short
distance of DAY that would be useful alternates in conditions that
would actually require you to file an alternate for DAY.

Michael

An different example of this was Port Columbus International in Columbus
OH (KCMH).
CMH had one 10,000 foot runway and one 6,000 foot parallel runway (it
now has the 6,000 extended to 8,000). Because the 6k runway was too
short for most airliners, the airline company operations manuals forbid
their Captains from filing CMH as an alternate in the event the 10k
runway was taken out of service.

Michael wrote:
Actually, that's not quite right. The A-NA refers to the approach, not
the airport. It is quite common to have some approaches to a given
airport marked A-NA, and others not so marked. In that case, the
'best' approach among those not marked A-NA is used to determine
alternate minima for that airport. If all approaches are marked A-NA,
then the only remaining approach is a visual. The alternate minima for
a visual are weather sufficient for descent from MEA to a landing under
basic VFR. Those minima are always authorized, so any airport is an
authorized alternate - the only question is what the alternate minima
will be. There are airports where the alternate minima require 10,000'
ceilings (mountain MEA's and valley airports will do that) but they are
still authorized.
I agree with you that there are not any airports within a short
distance of DAY that would be useful alternates in conditions that
would actually require you to file an alternate for DAY.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1...
But you have to first decide whether you need an alternate before
going
to the trouble of picking one.

So?

Any airport does not qualify. Most of those airports have "A-NA" on
the
chart, which stands for "Alternate - Not Authorized".

FAR 91.169 doesn't say anything about whether an alternate is
authorized or
not. ANY airport is authorized, as long as VFR conditions from MEA
to
landing are forecast.

OK, I may show my ignorance here. Isn't the approach procedures
constitute FAR 97? If a chart says 'Alternate Not Authorized', does it
not effectively disallow that airport from being listed as an
alternate?




The thread was a follow-up to 'flying to hamvention' thread. If you
look
at the Dayton area, there aren't any airports within a short
distance of
DAY that does not have an "A-NA" on it.

Ideally, an alternate would not be a short distance from your
destination
anyway. After all, if the weather's too poor for landing at your
destination, often it will be at a nearby airport as well.

I agree with you on that. Alternate should be selected where the wx is
likely to be significantly different.

"Andrew" wrote in message
ups.com...
OK, I may show my ignorance here. Isn't the approach procedures
constitute FAR 97? If a chart says 'Alternate Not Authorized', does it
not effectively disallow that airport from being listed as an
alternate?

The "not authorized" applies to the approach, not the airport (as Michael
already pointed out). Forecast VFR conditions allow ANY airport to qualify
as an alternate under the default visual approach that exists at every
airport.

If you have an airport for which every approach says "not authorized", then
the visual approach is the only way to use that airport as an alternate.
But even in that case, the airport is not ruled out as an alternate, except
due to the weather forecast. It is otherwise eligible.

Note that airports without instrument approaches don't even have a chart
where one could find "A-NA" listed on it. As much as I hate to bring logic
into a discussion about the FARs, it just wouldn't make sense for an airport
with an instrument approach to not be authorized as an alternate (even under
VFR conditions), even as one without is automatically granted qualification
as an alternate (under 91.169).

So, to reiterate: having one or more approaches at an airport listed as
"A-NA" does not disqualify the airport. It just disqualifies the approach.
And the visual approach is always authorized (since it doesn't rely on any
monitored navigation equipment, and an area forecast is sufficient for using
for alternate decision-making).

Pete

Good job Pete.
Alternate airport, not alternate approach.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/ii_9807.html
AOPA's article on the subject. It points out that FSS is a good place to
start asking for alternate suggestions as they have the forecasts right in
front of them.

When I file and am required to list an alternate, the first line of thought
that goes through my mind is "why" I need an alternate.... What weather
phenomenon has created the conditions, is it moving, which direction, and
how fast?

A wide area of like conditions forcast to remain the same or deteriorate
will usually tell me to pick an alternate that is enroute prior to my
original destination, however, if my original destination is in a low lying
area, near water and possibly surrounded by ground fog, an airport close by
but at a higher elevation may be the ticket. Same theory for lake effect
snow, go where it isn't! I'm usually better off filing an alternate further
inland than along the lake even though I will be going past my original
destination. I also try to pick alternate airports that have more services
than my original destination, if the weather is bad enough that I can't get
into Podunk on their VOR or GPS approach I know that the weather is worse
than forecast and my alternate will be the closest ILS with radar but
hopefully in the direction of more favorable conditions. Note that once
choosing the alternate the weather at the alternate then must meet the non
precision 800/2 and precision 600/2 rule. But to steal a line from AOPA's
article "It is also worth noting here that alternate minimums apply for
planning purposes alone. If you're airborne and heading to the alternate,
published minimums will now apply."

Jim

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 61...


If the destination does not have an instrument approach you must pick an
alternate.

If the destination has an instrument approach, then you don't need an
alternate unless the the weather is worse than 2000' ceiling or 3SM vis
+/1hr of the ETA. (ie if the forecast is worse than VFR then you need an
alternate).



The above is not "the process for choosing an alternate". It's the process
for deciding whether you NEED an alternate.



You can't pick any airports as an alternate. Only a few airports qualify
as an alternate.



Wrong. Any airport qualifies, as long as the forecast is for VFR conditions
from the descent from MEA all the way to the ground. Beyond that, lots of
airports have instrument approaches and thus qualify as an alternate under
lower forecast conditions. Even in IFR conditions, it's far from true that
"only a few airports qualify as an alternate".

Pete




We have a local airport (KGYI) with an ILS and it does apply as an
alternate. At the time it didn't have weather reporting, but now has a AWOS

--
Regards,

Ross
________________________________________
972.952.3170 Phone 972.949.9249 Pager
972.952.2574 FAX

McKinney / Wing A2 North @ 48v72