Non-Standard Alternate Minimums

When filing an IFR flight plan, part of the process is determining whether or not an alternate airport is required.  An alternate airport is required when the following conditions exist(as is outlined by the FAA in 91.169 (b)):

The weather conditions at the destination airport

  • From 1 hour before your arrival time to 1 hour after your estimated time of arrival, the weather conditions are forecast to be below
  • 2,000 Feet AGL and/or
  • 3 statute miles visibility

Let’s paint a scenario.  You are traveling from KSAT (San Antonio International Airport) to KHBV (Jim Hogg County Airport in Hebbronville, TX).  You start to file your flight plan and get down to the space where you put your alternate in.  Since Laredo (KLRD) is the closest airport with a TAF, you check Laredo’s TAF and see that the forecast conditions there at your ETA are ceilings 1,500 and visibility of 2sm.

Based on this information, you need an alternate airport.  Now, the process of finding one.  In Part 91.169 (c), the forecast conditions at the alternate airport must be at or above:

  • 600 Feet AGL and 2sm visibility for a precision approach, or
  • 800 Feet AGL and 2sm visibility for a non-precision approach

Alright, now we have some guidance.  Laredo is the nearest airport to KHBV, and we know the forecast from the above TAF showing the conditions are forecast to be above the alternate minimums outlined in Part 91, so let’s pick Laredo.  All done?

Not quite.  A lot of airports have Non-Standard Alternate Minimums.  How do you figure out if they do?  The easiest way is to look at any approach plate for the airport.  In the notes section of the government plates, there will be a black triangle with an A in it.  That means there are non-standard alternate minimums published for that airport (in layman’s terms, different than the ones stated above in Part 91).

ILS 17R KLRD

Now the question is, where do you find those non-standard alternate minimums?  On Foreflight:

  • Go to the Airports page
  • Tap the Procedures button
  • Tap the Arrival button
  • Tap the Alternate Minimums option

This brings up the IFR Alternate Minimums document for all the airports with non-standard alternate minimums in that area.  Scroll through to find Laredo.

Non-Standard Alternate Minimums

As you can see, there are several notes there concerning the different approaches into Laredo.  For our example, we’ll say the winds are out of the south and we are planning on flying the ILS 17R if we cannot get into KHBV and have to come to Laredo.  The note there is that the Alternate Minimums for the ILS 17R are actually 700 AGL ceilings and 2sm instead of the above state 600 AGL ceilings and 2sm, the procedure is NA if the tower is closed, and NA if the local weather isn’t received.

What does this tell us?  If the forecasted ceilings at Laredo were below 600 AGL instead of 700 AGL, we would not be able to use LRD as an alternate airport if we were planning on flying the ILS 17R.  The RNAV approaches are all fair game, so a GPS equipped aircraft would have no problem.

On top of that, some approaches at a certain airport are not authorized to be used in the case of the airport being used as an alternate.  At the Galveston airport (KGLS), the ILS 14 is NA as an alternate procedure, but all the RNAV approaches are available.

 

Picking an alternate seems simple at first, but there are actually a lot of things to consider in the process.

Need help remember all this stuff?  AOPA has put out a kneeboard sheet that helps all IFR pilots remember those important things when it comes to IFR flying.  Check it out here.

Similar Posts

  • Redbird Skyport Bluebonnet Fly-In at KHYI

    Bluebonnet Fly In

    Come out to Redbird Skyport at the San Marcos Municipal Airport on Saturday, May 30th for the Bluebonnet Fly-In.  Hank Gibson from Texas Top Aviation will be giving a safety presentation at 2pm in the large conference room entitled “Is The Approach Activate?  Flying Garmin Approaches.”

    Join Texas Top Aviation and Redbird Skyport as we open the summer together at the Bluebonnet Fly-In.

    To Register for the Safety Seminar, please click here.

  • FICON Reports

    Field Condition, or FICON, reports show up in NOTAMs both during the summer time and the winter time. In the southern states, FICON reports are seen more in the summertime during and after hard rains and thunderstorms (with the exception of winter 2021 & 2022, where Texans quickly got familiar with FICON reports after some very unusual winter weather). In cold winter climates, FICON reports are a staple during the winter season, showing up during and after snow & ice storms.

    The question is, what do those codes mean in the FICON report? You could see 5/5/5, 3/3/3, 3/4/4 and any combination thereof. And why are there three numbers?

    Let’s start with the second question first. The three different numbers in the FICON report indicate the 3 different sections of the runway: the touchdown third, midpoint third, and rollout third of the runway.

    Now, what are those numbers describing? The three numbers are the indication of how slippery that portion of the runway is. This is referred to as a Runway Condition Code (or RCC). The lower the number, the more slippery the runway is. The higher the number, the dryer the runway. The scale is 0-6, with 6 being completely dry and zero being no traction at all.

    Here is the FAA table for the RCCs.

    Now, in order for those RCC codes to generate, at least 25% of the surface must be wet. If there are just spots of standing water, slush or snow, a FICON report will be issued to report the contaminants, but no codes will be generated.

    The Runway Condition Codes are only part of a FICON report. In addition to the codes, a descriptor in the NOTAM will be published describing what percentage of the portion of the runway is affected and by what.

    For example: RWY 28 FICON 3/3/3 100 PRCNT 2IN DRY SN OVER COMPACTED SN.

    Deciphered, that is saying that all sections of Runway 28 have braking deceleration that is noticeably reduced or direction control is noticeably reduced and 100% of each section has 2 inches of dry snow over compacted snow. Sounds like a runway to avoid!

    Braking action reports are separate from FICON reports, but also issued via NOTAM. Braking action reports are issued by the airport manager whereas the FICON reports are computer generated.

  • A Complex Clearance?

    I was flying in the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas a few weeks ago and heard an IFR clearance given to a King Air that pricked my ears up.  It was a clearance from CRP to LRD, but the routing was one you don’t hear too often anymore.  Because of active military airspace, the routing was via a radial and DME off the CRP VOR (so a point defined by the radial and DME) to another radial and DME point off the LRD VOR.

    It took me a second to think about how to do this the easiest (without setting up the VOR and watching the DME).  After a moment’s thought, it’s actually a snap with the G1000.  You create 2 user waypoints, one for each Radial/DME spot, then put those 2 user waypoints in your Flight Plan.

    Here’s how.

    Step 1

    Using the big knob, go to the Waypoint chapter.  Once there, scroll down to the User Waypoint page using the small knob.

    Step 2

    Press the New soft key.  If you want to name the waypoint something specific, you can do that at the top of the page.  If not, it will default to something like VOR 1 or VOR 2.

    Step 3

    Under Waypoint Type, use the small knob to select RAD/DIS (stands for Radial/Distance).

    Step 4

    Under Reference Waypoints, again using the small knob (or your keypad), type or dial in the VOR identifier, the radial from that VOR, and the DME distance.  Press enter and you are done.

    Once you have both User Waypoints created, then just put them in your flight plan (if you forget what you named them, you can just go back to the User Waypoint page), and off you go.

  • The New Diamond DA50 Line

    Diamond has joined the high performance single engine fray with the announcement of it’s new line of DA50 models.  Cirrus currently has the cornered the market on easy flying, fixed gear, speedy HP single engine airplanes.  But, (assuming that the Diamond DA50 gets certified in a timely manner and the appeal of the Jet A sipping SMA diesel engines appeals to a broad enough audience), Cirrus could have some competition soon.

    The proposed Diamond DA50 will come in 3 different configurations, the IV, the V, and the VII.  The IV and the V will each burn under 10 GPH of Jet A. The VII will burn about 14 GPH of Jet A, using the same amount of fuel as a normally aspirated SR22, but at cheaper Jet A prices (plus the discount of fuel companies like CAA or AEG Fuels).

    According to AOPA, all 3 Diamond DA50 models will be equipped with the Garmin G1000 NXi panel and the GFC 700 Autopilot. The Diamond DA50 -V will be the first model expected out next year, with the IV to follow soon after.  The wait for the VII will be a bit longer.

    In testing, the Diamond DA50 -V showed true airspeeds of 173 knots with an expected range of almost 1100 miles.  Gone is the bubble canopy that greatly increased the green house affect of the airplane.  It’s replaced by two suicide doors, similar to what is on the Cessna TTx.  The single back seat door on the pilot’s side remains.

    Carrying capacity will be greater than the Cirrus as well.  The Diamond DA50 -V will have a gross weight of around 4,000 pounds, giving it a useful load of 1,250 pounds, giving pilots a lot more flexibility in weight carrying.  The Diamond DA50 exterior will be fully customizable as well as advances in carbon fiber paint and decals has come a long way since the early 2000s when white was the only option.

    Here are some basic specs for each DA50 model:

    Diamond DA50 -IV

    • 230 HP
    • 4 seats
    • Less than 10GPH fuel burn

    Diamond DA50 -V

    • 260 HP
    • 5 seats
    • 10 GPH Fuel Burn

    Diamond DA50 -VII

    • 360 HP
    • 7 seats
    • Retractable Gear
    • Turboprop option

    I am most excited to see the performance numbers on the VII model when it comes to market.  With a 360 HP engine and retractable gear, it seems like it will be a screamer.

    There are also rumors that Diamond is working on a rotorcraft, the Dart 280, but there isn’t a flying model at the moment.

  • FltPlan Go

    I am an iPad user, but I have an Android phone.  I had been using a junky aviation weather app that just gave meters and TAFs, but seemed to have been programmed in a foreign language (un-decoded TAFs notwithstanding).  I wanted something more robust, but didn’t see the need to pay for a Garmin Pilot subscription since Foreflight on my iPad was my main EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) I use in the airplane.

    When I upgraded my phone, I decided I had to find something better.  I have a WIFI only iPad, so I utilize my phone to take quick glances at weather reports or when I want to see the radar without having to tether my iPad to my phone.  The app I had wasn’t cutting it.

    That’s when I found FltPlan Go.  We are all familiar with FltPlan.com.  It’s what a lot of corporate pilots use to file flight plans.  I’ve used it some, but there is a large amount of data it needs to set up an airplane. Since I already have all the airplanes I need in Foreflight, I don’t use it that much since I didn’t want to do the setup.  It is rather handy as it spits out flight logs and has a lot of pre-loaded performance numbers for different makes and models.

    FltPlan Go

    FltPlan Go is FltPlan.com‘s app.  It is very user friendly, easy to use, and, most importantly, free!  You can get METARs, TAFs, NOTAMs, Airport Diagrams, approach plates, full weather reports for airports including radar, maps, and a whole lot more.  As far as I can tell, it is a full fledged EFB.  I haven’t really scratched the surface on all the features in using mine, but it is quite robust from the little bit of poking around I’ve done.

    I’m still a Foreflight guy, but if you want something else or you have an Android phone and don’t want to pay for Garmin Pilot or WingXPro, check out FltPlan Go.  It’s a winner.

  • Epic E1000 Gets the GFC 700

    When the Epic E1000 was finally certified in the spring of 2020, there was much celebrating across the aviation world. Epic Aircraft expended a lot of time and energy getting the E1000 certified and into production (more information on that journey here and in Flying Magazine here).

    The airplane is amazing. In the single engine, 6 seat turboprop market, it easily blows away the competition. With it’s 1,200 SHP PT6-67A, it has double the horsepower of the M600 (600 SHP), and 350 more horsepower than the TBM 940 (850 SHP). It’s 60 KTAS faster than the M600 and, even though the TBM can keep up (both airplanes have equal top cruise speeds of 330 KTAS), the Epic E1000 can carry a payload of 1,024 pounds with full fuel, while the 940 can only carry 584 pounds with full fuel. The TBM carries about 15 minutes more of fuel, but to me, that’s pretty negligible.

    Did I mention climb rates? The E1000 climbs at an average of 1500 FPM at Vy (it’s capable of 4,000 FPM), making it to 25,000 feet in 10 minutes. The TBM climbs at 1000 FPM, taking 13 minutes to climb to the same altitude, while the M600 settles in at about 800 FPM, reaching FL250 in 21 minutes.

    If you expand the comparison to include the Pilatus PC-12, the two airplanes have 1,200 SHP, but the Epic is 50 KTAS faster and they both have about the same weight carrying ability.

    In the most important arena, price, the E1000 is around a million dollars cheaper than the TBM 940.

    The one drawback to the Epic E1000 that immediately was noticeable was the autopilot. Epic originally installed the STEC 2100 autopilot to pair with the G1000 (and later the G1000 NXi). Epic decided to stick with the STEC 2100 through certification for the plane since that autopilot was on all of the E1000s paperwork going through all the levels of FAA approval. To change to the GFC 700 during the certification process would have been a massive undertaking that probably would have delayed certification.

    The STEC 2100 is a good autopilot, but, as any G1000 pilot can tell you, the lack of integration between any STEC autopilot and Garmin panel leaves some to be desired. Not all the bugs talk, which often requires dual data entry, which can lead to forgetting to do both the bug and the autopilot when things get busy. Hello, altitude deviation.

    The goal for Epic was never to leave the STEC autopilot in the airplane. The first E1000s were rolled off the line with the STEC, but Epic didn’t take long to change the autopilot to the much more integrated Garmin GFC 700. That took place this winter (2020), and the E1000 received it’s first upgrade, with Epic dubbing the airplane the Epic E1000 GX.

    I expect the innovators in Bend, OR, where Epic is based and where tons of innovation in aviation happens (Lancair/Columbia started in Bend while RDD is based there as well), to quickly come out with more avionics upgrades for the airplane. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a G3000 version at some point, complete with auto throttles and the new Garmin Autoland. Epic would be smart to follow in the steps of Daher and offer two models, one with the G1000 and one with the G3000 (the TBM 910 has the G1000 NXi while the TBM 940 has the G3000).

    I have yet to fly in an Epic E1000, but I would certainly jump at the chance to do so. Someone asked me yesterday what airplane I would buy if I had a blank check. With the GFC 700 now in the Epic, it would absolutely be the E1000 GX.

4 Comments

  1. Now the question is, where do you find those non-standard alternate minimums for people *not* using Foreflight?

    1. Hi Theo, in almost all of the EFB apps, it’ll be wherever the arrival and departure info for that airport is stored. If you are looking at a Jepp plate, it’ll be on the airport information plate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *