When flying a domestic US flight, an alternate airport is not required unless the weather is below specific minimums at the destination.
What are the rules when on an international flight plan and leaving or returning to the US?
In larger airplanes, carrying the extra fuel required to fly to an alternate (which costs money) is a little silly when there isn't a cloud in the sky and there are multiple airports in the vicinity of your destination that can be easily reached with your already required 45 minute IFR reserve. We should always have a plan for when things go wrong, but if it can be done safely, is it legal to file an international flight plan without an alternate?
Think about why you have to choose an alternate airport. The most important thing to remember about alternates is that they will only be used when the weather is bad. The destination airport has gone below IFR minimums, and you are now relying on your alternate airport to get safely back on the ground. The planned flight has essentially been aborted, and a back-up plan of action is required.
So even if the rules do not dictate that you should get an alternate airport, it's best to have one or more in case something goes wrong. During an emergency the last thing you want to do is get a chart and start finding an airport.
This isn't very clear, at least based on the published information that I could find. The AIM 5-1-9 says:
Use of FAA Form 7233-4 is recommended for domestic IFR flights and is mandatory for all IFR flights that will depart U.S. domestic airspace.
7233-4 is basically an ICAO flight plan form, and the AIM says this about the alternates:
(b) Alternate and 2nd Alternate Aerodrome (Optional)
But it isn't clear - to me - if the word "optional" applies here to the entire line, or only to the second alternate.
Interestingly, the AIM also says this:
NOTE- Although alternate airport information filed in an FPL will be accepted by air traffic computer systems, it will not be presented to controllers. If diversion to an alternate airport becomes necessary, pilots are expected to notify ATC and request an amended clearance.
That could mean that both the alternate and second alternate are optional, since there would be no point in requiring information that isn't even visible to ATC. However that's a guess and could easily be wrong (the data could be useful in other ways); I couldn't find any guidance on this on ICAO's site either. And airlines probably have their own internal rules on identifying and filing alternates as well.
A flight returning to the US would almost certainly use an ICAO flight plan, so whatever the correct interpretation of "optional" is here, it would apply to those flights too.
Anyway, regardless of what the regulations say, filing alternates does have the significant benefit of 'forcing' you to plan and review your route more carefully.
I think the answer here is "It depends on the rules of the countries whose airspace you will be using" -- For example if I'm going in to Canada from my home base in New York I would need an alternate airport if either the US or Canadian regs required one.
Of course as Lucas pointed out what is legal and what is prudent aren't always the same: you probably want to have an alternate airport in mind for every flight (VFR or IFR), and you may want to list them on your flight plans so ATC has the information (even if it's not visible to controllers it can be used for Search & Rescue purposes and the like if the worst should happen).
Similarly you probably want to have multiple realistic diversion options in mind along your whole route, just to have all your bases covered.
You all give some nice explanation but to answer the actual question, no, there are operations, where no alternate is required.
Some really remote airports wich are right in the middle of nowhere are referred as isolated airports. If you are going to these fields, no alternate will be required but you are required to take a lot of extra fuel (EASA requires the fuel you would consume while holding for 2 hours in 1500 feet above the destinatkon). I chose chose this example, because I know that this is pretty much the same all around the wor, d, but different authoritys also aprove some other flights without having an alternate. See the FAA, or even the very srickt EASA which doesn't require an altrnate if independent runways with insrument approaches and sufficiant weather information for the destination, forcasting 'good' weather are available.
It does not depend on the state you are going to, anyway this state has to except your operation first, but on the state of the operator. The exact procedures saying for wich kind of operation you need wich amount of alternates, where they must be located, what minimum equipment they need to offer and how much fuel you need to take is written in the operations manual, which is at least as restrictive as the rules of the state of the operator.
As a simple anwer, no, it is not always required.
ICAO Annex 6 220.127.116.11 Destination alternate aerodromes
For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans, unless:
a) the duration of the flight and the meteorological conditions prevailing are such that there is reasonable certainty that, at the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing, and for a reasonable period before and after such time, the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions; or
b) the aerodrome of intended landing is isolated and there is no suitable destination alternate aerodrome.
Also, there are similar descriptions for the requirements for take-off and en-route alternates.
EASA adds aditional requirements in OPS 1.295 in the form of maximum flight time of 6 hours and at least two runways at the airport, but it is still allowed. I can only assume FAA does a similar thing
When flying a domestic US flight, an alternate airport is not required unless the weather is below specific minimums at the destination. What are the rules when on an international flight plan and leaving or returning to the US? In larger airplanes, carrying the extra fuel required to fly to an alternate (which costs money) is a little silly when there isn't a cloud in the sky and there are multiple airports in the vicinity of your destination that can be easily reached with your already required 45 minute IFR reserve. We should always have a plan for when things go wrong, but if it can
something like "Well do you have an IFR flight plan or are you reporting IFR??" I had always used that phraseology because it seems the least wordy way to get the info across, which can be helpful when the freq is busy. What is the technically correct way to get an IFR clearance on an existing IFR flight plan? ...I once had a traffic controller give me a hard time about how I requested IFR clearance once in the air. I had previously filed an IFR flight plan, and took off from my untowered home airport
You are asked to fly a 91 owner trip to a destination. A 135 trip comes up after your owner flight. Does your 135 duty time start when company asked you to fly the 91 owner flight?
FAR 135.385 requires that at your destination airport your flight planning shows that you could make a full-stop landing "within 60 percent of the effective length" of the runway when flying transport-category turbine-powered aircraft. For piston-powered aircraft FAR 135.377 has a similar 70% rule. How do you calculate minimum runway lengths under these rules? Can you use 80% of the runway? What if the runway is wet?
Hi – Here’s the scenario: The flight starts night VFR, with broken ceiling at destination (class C airspace) and expected to improve according to the pre-flight abbreviated briefing. I'm IFR certified but prefer to stay VFR to dodge icy clouds along the way. Now I’m about 15nm from my destination, talking to approach control, and the ATIS calls the ceiling overcast: it's apparent I'll have... to descend thru the layer and shoot an approach a ‘real’ IFR flight plan? b). ask approach to change freq. to FSS, file with them, then return to approach to pickup the clearance (and cancel when
So when a pilot is flying along and suddenly hears a "Climb... Climb..." Resolution Advisory (RA) from ACAS/TCAS, we are trained to immediately climb to avoid a collision with another aircraft... Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office when: ... (10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued either: (i) When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or (ii) To an aircraft operating in class
I did my initial training in a high altitude area, where it got pretty hot in the summer, so I'm not at all surprised when I hear an ASOS annouce "Caution: Density Altitude (a few thousand above field elev.)". But recently, I was flying in SE. Kansas when it was extremely cold outside. The ASOS announced "Caution: Density Altitude minus 1800 ft". I understand that cold winter air can make the air extremely dense, leading to a negative density altitude. But I don't understand the caution part of it. As far as I'm aware, low density altitudes mean your engine generates more power
On the sidesticks of Airbus aircraft, there is a Priority Takeover button. Wikipedia has this to say: In typical Airbus side-stick implementations, the sticks are independent. The plane's computer either aggregates multiple inputs or a pilot can press a "priority button" to lock out inputs from the other side-stick. On US flight 1549, the CVR transcript shows that Sully hit the Priority T/O button, after the co-pilot (Skiles) handed over control of the aircraft: 15:27:23.2 - Sully: My aircraft. 15:27:24.0 - Skiles: Your aircraft. 15:27:26.5 - FWC: Priority left. I'm
list if it does all go wrong and lets your brain focus on the situation. The D&D cell are always happy to assist and I know that they welcome it as it gives them practice as much as it does me. They are always excellent and it's comforting to know that they are there if I ever need them for real. However, I know that many pro pilots do not approve of this. I am aware that they are often required to monitor guard and that practice pans can be a source of noise but is it really that disturbing? I've even had that terse "transmitting on guard" broadcast which to me is a) entirely
Non-precision instrument approaches generally have altitude restrictions which get lower when you get closer to the airport. I always figured these restrictions were AMSL using the current altimeter setting, not compensating for temperature. Some have heard the mnemonic that mountains are higher come wintertime, which basically means that colder weather make your altimeter read higher than you actually are (or, as most pilots prefer to think, you're lower than what your altimeter reads) Have a look at this VOR approach into Newark Most altitude restrictions are a minimum level, so