I think it's better to require the forecast weather to protect the
highest minimums published (for the procedure) than to add an arbitrary
300' buffer. It's better for the pilot to determine what kind of buffer
he would like to add, if any, than to have the government decide what
your buffer should be. Some pilots would be comfortable with no buffer,
while others may want a much higher buffer than 300 ft.
Right now the alternate minimums in the USA are determined by using a
standard value based on the type of approach being flown, or a ceiling
and visibility exceeding the highest circling minima for that
procedure/category, whichever is higher.
You can always add 300 ft to that value if you prefer, but why force it
on all other pilots?
The only time it would be dangerous is if both the primary and alternate
airports had drastic weather changes that made the field below minimums.
That could happen whether you had the USA alternate minimums, or
Canadian minimums (extra 300').
Another alternative is to pick an airport for an alternate that allows
straight in procedures for the equipment you have, that would give you
extra ceiling/vis to play with.

JPH


wrote:
Stan, here in Canada, the forecast weather at your alternate must be
at least 300 feet and 1 mile above the approach minimums (or 600/2 or
800/2, whichever is higher). Supposedly to help ensure you can make
it in at your alternate. A kind of buffer.
I was just surprised to see that in the US, there are no such
additives.
And so, the alternate weather limits in the US can be the same as the
approach limits, in a very **FEW** cases.
CRQ was an example I found.
As an explanation to why it is only in a "few" cases, I notice in the
US that alternate weather limits must be at or above circling approach
limits too. And so, **normally** you find straight in approach limits
are less that alternate weather limits.
Canada does not have that circling minimums requirement as part of
alternate weather requirements.

On 07 Apr 2005 04:26:10 GMT, Stan Gosnell wrote:


wrote in news:kru751l8bu0ve04b4j7gnfdqh2rk39hjlh@
4ax.com:


Does anyone consider it somewhat dangerous that at your alternate
airport, the weather can be forecast to be as low as your alternate
minimums? Seems the potential for problems.

But that's the definition of alternate minimums - the weather must be
forecast to be at least as good as the alternate minimums.


For example, using Carlsad California CRQ as the planned alternate,
where the VOR-A is the approach you plan to fly if necessary (assume
the ils is out). For a cat C aircraft, the alternate minimums are
1000 and 3. The approach minimums are 972 feet height above airfield,
and 3 miles without dme.

Why assume the ILS is out? If it's out, the alternate minimums should be
higher. If the permitted approach minimums are 972/3, then that's why
the alternate minimums are 1000/3, obviously.


So is this all ok?

Why wouldn't it be? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I
don't see a problem with any of this, just from your post, no other
information available.